Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 05/04/2023
Page 1 of 3 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M. MAY 4, 2023, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112. INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY SHOULD REGISTER AT https://bit.ly/5423CCPC ANY TIME AFTER THE AGENDA IS POSTED ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE WHICH IS 6 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING OR THROUGH THE LINK PROVIDED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE COUNTY WEBSITE AT http://colliercountyfl.iqm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx INDIVIDUALS WHO REGISTER WILL RECEIVE AN EMAIL IN ADVANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING DETAILING HOW THEY CAN PARTICIPATE REMOTELY IN THIS MEETING. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL TO AILYN PADRON AT: ailyn.padron@CollierCountyFL.gov. 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 6, 2023, CCPC Meeting Minutes 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS Page 2 of 3 7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ADVERTISED: 1. PL20220003426 - 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 Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Rural Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map and Map Series to revise the Immokalee Road – Estates Commercial Subdistrict to add 2.69± acres to the subdistrict; to allow 130,000 square feet of gross floor area of indoor self-storage; and to reduce commercial uses from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of gross floor area on property consisting of 21.82± 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. The subject property is located approximately one-half mile north of Randall Boulevard on the west side of Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County Florida. (Companion item PUDR PL20220003428) [Coordinator: Rachel Hansen, Planner III] 2. PL20210003428 - BCHD 1 PUDR - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2021-20, the BCHD 1 Commercial Planned Unit Development, by adding acreage and uses; by amending Ordinance Number 2004- 41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 2.69± acres of land zoned Estates (E) to the BCHD 1 Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD); by adding 130,000 square feet of gross floor area of indoor self-storage; by reducing commercial uses from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of gross floor area; by amending the master plan; by amending the legal description; by adding a deviation to off-street parking design; by updating development commitments; and by providing an effective date. (Companion Item PL20220003426 GMPA) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III] 3. PL20190001540 - Brookside Marina (Rezone) - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Single Family 4 (RSF-4) Zoning District to a General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District limited to a marina use, for the property located on Davis Boulevard approximately 2/10 of one mile east of Tamiami Trail East in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 4.4± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Planner III] 4. PL20210002658 - Stor All Storage Rezone (RZ) - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, rezoning of property from Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to Heavy Commercial District (C-5), subject to conditions, for a self-storage facility and general commercial district (C-4) uses on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) just east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), 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 Page 3 of 3 appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property consisting of approximately +/-5.98 acres, located on Lots 2 and 3 of Inland Village, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 2005-35 and Resolution No. 2014-140; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/dl 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 4, 2023 9: 00 AM Edwin Fryer- Chairman Joseph Schmitt, Environmental - Vice -Chair Paul Shea, Environmental - Secretary Christopher Vernon Robert Klucik, Jr. Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher Amy Lockhart, 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. Collier County Planning Commission Page I Printed 412612023 May 2023 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. April 6, 2023 CCPC Meeting Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PL20220003426 - 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 Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Rural Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map and Map Series to revise the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict to add 2.69E acres to the subdistrict; to allow 130,000 square feet of gross floor area of indoor self storage; and to reduce commercial uses from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of gross floor area on property consisting of 21.82E 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. The subject property is located approximately one- half mile north of Randall Boulevard on the west side of Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County Florida. (Companion item PUDR PL20220003428) [Coordinator: Rachel Hansen, Planner III] Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 412612023 May 2023 2. PL20210003428-BCHD 1 PUDR - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2021-20, the BCHD 1 Commercial Planned Unit Development, by adding acreage and uses; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 2.69f acres of land zoned Estates (E) to the BCHD 1 Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD); by adding 130,000 square feet of gross floor area of indoor self -storage; by reducing commercial uses from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of gross floor area; by amending the master plan; by amending the legal description; by adding a deviation to off-street parking design; by updating development commitments; and by providing an effective date. (Companion Item PL20220003426 BCHD 1 PUDR) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III] 3. PL20190001540 - Brookside Marina (Rezone) - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004- 41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Single Family 4 (RSF-4) Zoning District to a General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District limited to a marina use, for the property located on Davis Boulevard approximately 2/10 of one mile east of Tamiami Trail East in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 4.4f acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Planner III] 4. PL20210002658 - Stor All Storage Rezone (RZ) - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, rezoning of property from Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to Heavy Commercial District (C-5), subject to conditions, for a self -storage facility and general commercial district (C-4) uses on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) just east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), 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 consisting of approximately +/-5.98 acres, located on Lots 2 and 3 of Inland Village, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 2005-35 and Resolution No. 2014-140; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] B. Noticed 10. Old Business II. New Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 412612023 5.A 05/04/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Doc ID: 25345 Item Summary: April 6, 2023 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 05/04/2023 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst — Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 04/20/2023 5:15 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 04/20/2023 5:15 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending Completed 04/20/2023 5:15 PM Review Item Completed 04/21/2023 5:09 PM Completed 04/21/2023 6:34 PM Completed 04/24/2023 3:23 PM 05/04/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 4 April 6, 2023 5.A.a TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 6, 2023 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 Joe Schmitt, Vice Chair Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Paul Shea Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher ABSENT: Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office Page 1 of 100 Packet Pg. 5 April 6, 2023 5.A.a PROCEEDINGS MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Very good morning to all, and welcome to the April 6th, 2023, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Secretary, please call the roll, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart is absent, excused. Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Here. Commissioner Vernon has an excused absence. Commissioner Shea is here. Mr. Schmitt, Vice Chair? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And, Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have a quorum, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, a quorum of six. Let's see. Addenda to the agenda; first of all, before calling on Mr. Bellows, I'm going to propose that we add a new business item in the event we have time, and it's going to be at the Planning Commission's discretion, because I'm just not at all sure how much time we will have today. But if, in our discretion, we do have time, I'd like to ask Mr. Bosi to give a detailed report to us under new business on the Live Local -- new Live Local Florida Statute where we can ask questions and have discussion. It's a very important development for us. In case we don't get to that, when it comes time for the Chairman's report, I'm going to just say very briefly what the highlights of that are perhaps to whet your appetite for the new business item when Mr. Bosi and possibly our County Attorney representatives will go into greater detail. Mr. Bellows, addenda -- any more addenda? MR. BELLOWS: No changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I assume there's no objection from the Planning Commission for that new business item that I'm proposing. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No objection. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No objection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Planning Commission absences; our next meeting is on April 20, 2023. Does anyone know if he won't be able to attend that meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be able to attend that meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, Vice Chair. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Same question for our meeting on May 4. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will miss that meeting as well. I'm going to be in the Far East for a couple weeks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: May 4? CHAIRMAN FRYER: May 4. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I will not be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we'll be hoping for a quorum. We'll hope that Page 2 of 100 Packet Pg. 6 April 6, 2023 5.A.a Commissioner Vernon can be here. All right. Let's see. Approval of the minutes; we have the minutes of the afternoon and the evening sessions of our March 2, 2023, meeting. Unless there are any corrections, changes, or additions to the minutes of either of those two sessions, I'd entertain a motion to approve them both. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's been moved and seconded that we approve both the afternoon and evening sessions' minutes of the March 2, 2023, meeting. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. BCC report/recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On March 28th, the Board of County Commissioners approved the GMP transmittal for the four initiatives to address housing -- for affordable housing, and that was passed by a vote of 4-1. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Under Chairman's report, as I mentioned, I'm going to speak very briefly about a development in Tallahassee that will affect all of us on this side of the daises -- dais, rather, and on the other as well, and then, time permitting, at the end, we'll have an opportunity for a more detailed presentation from Mr. Bosi and possibly the county attorneys and questions and comments at that time as well. But under this new Live Local law, which becomes effective on July 1 of this year, a county must administratively authorize -- and by that it means no Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioners herein must administratively authorize a proposed residential or mixed -use project on any parcel zoned as commercial, industrial, or mixed -use provided that, No. 1, the project contains at least 40 percent affordable units. And "affordable" in this case, there's no requirement to blend the AMI limits. All of the units, therefore, could actually be at 120 percent AMI. So that No. 1 condition is 40 percent of affordable units. Number 2, a density that does not exceed the highest density allowed on any parcel where residential use is allowed. Number 3, with a building height that does not exceed the highest allowable building height for residential or commercial structures within one mile of the parcel, and -- I missed the density one. No, I didn't. Okay. We got them all. And the project satisfies all other applicable land development regulations. So that's all I'm going to say about it at this time. It's a very substantive change to the law of affordable housing in the state of Florida and, if time permits, we'll go into it in greater detail under new business. Now, bear with me one moment. Okay. Consent agenda; none today. ***Public hearings; the first advertised public hearing will be on two companion applications, PL20220001043. This is the Airport Carlisle Mixed -Use Subdistrict Small -Scale Page 3 of 100 Packet Pg. 7 April 6, 2023 5.A.a Growth Management Plan amendment, and its companion, PL20220001042, The Haven at North Naples Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development PUDZ. All those wishing to testify in these matters, 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 Mr. Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials and site visit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, site visit, meeting with staff, conversation with applicant's representative. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoke with Mr. Yovanovich, applicant's attorney, and I briefly spoke to Bob Mulhere about the project this morning. But I had a phone call with Rich Yovanovich concerning the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just a meeting with the county staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials, drove by the site, and also had a conversation with the attorney for the submittal here. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, Planning Commission. At this time the Chair recognizes Mr. Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. You have two items before you today that are related. One is a Small -Scale GMP Growth Management Plan amendment to create a subdistrict that will allow for and provide for income -restricted housing. The timing is probably a little ironic with regard to the changes in the legislation at the state but is timely with regard to what everybody knows is a need in Collier County as well as throughout the state of Florida, and second is a companion PUD amendment to amend -- implement the proposed Growth Management Plan change. The team that can answer any questions with me today is Kerry -Ann Wilson with Johnson Development Associates. Johnson Development is not foreign to Collier County. They have two existing Class A multifamily rental complexes in Collier County. I had both of them approved. I remember the PUD names but don't remember the names of the apartment complexes. One of them is in Briarwood, which we will mention in our presentation, similar density and intensity as what we're proposing today; and then Courthouse Shadows right across the street. Both of those are projects that Johnson Development is developing. Bret Boyd is part of the team. He actually led the efforts on the Briarwood project. So he, too, is familiar, and a Collier County residents. Bob Mulhere you all know; myself, Norm Trebilcock is our transportation consultant; Tim Hall is our environmental consultant; Jeremie Chastain with Hole Montes is one of the planners on the project; and Kevin Dowty is here to answer any civil engineering related questions that you may have regarding the proposed project. I'm going to give some brief comments and overview of the proposed project and then turn it over to Bob to get into the details and explain the master plan and compatibility with what's around us in the neighborhood. But I wanted to start with where's the property. The property is basically at the intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Road. It's outlined in red. It's 27.8 acres where the Carlisle project is existing and will remain. What will be added is the apartment complex, and I -- in the green vacant area on this site. There are certain things I want to address right at the beginning because I know you've received a few emails. We've had a very -- we had two neighborhood information -- we had a neighborhood information meeting, and then we had a follow-up meeting with leadership of the Page 4 of 100 Packet Pg. 8 April 6, 2023 different associations. So there's been a lot of attempts at public outreach to explain what the project really is and what the project isn't. The project itself will be two projects within the PUD. The Carlisle will remain. The Carlisle has an access on Orange Blossom. Our project will not be interconnected with the Carlisle and will not have access onto Orange Blossom. Bob will take you through greater detail, but I want to get through this early on as to what's really being requested. Access will be onto Airport. There will be emergency access through Bear Creek. That's our only access points for this project. There's no direct access to Orange Blossom. This corner is essentially -- although not actually designated as an activity center -- functions like an activity center. All four corners have commercial approved on it. You have -- on the northeast corner, you have a Greek church as well as a subdistrict that allows commercial on the vacant piece that you see right there allows commercial. The southeast quadrant allows commercial. The northwest quadrant is the county complex. It's office buildings and a library. And then the southwest quadrant is the Italian -American Club in the five acres adjacent to it to the south, all either zoned for or designated in the Growth Management Plan for commercial uses. And, candidly, the Carlisle can be designated as commercial under the county's different zoning designations. It can either be considered institutional, it can be considered residential, or it can be considered commercial. So this quadrant is a commercial quadrant for purposes of how it's been approved and will be operated. The -- Orange Blossom Drive, for those of you who have been here for a long time, was originally approved for, on the master plan, as a four -lane road both on the east and west sides of Airport Road. Several years ago, the Commission, at the request of the residents along the western portion of Orange Blossom, restrained the road to two lanes. That did not mean that density was going to be removed. It just meant you were going to have a two-lane road instead of a four -lane road, and you were going to have to deal with a little additional traffic to go on two lanes versus what was previously designated four lanes. There was no corresponding downzoning of anything around there to implement the proposed designation of this as a restrained roadway. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just for clarification, if I may. Mr. Yovanovich, could you look at the first page of this matter on the agenda. I think it's the first page. And it's just a heading. It's the heading where it just says "item summary," and then it gives the PL number and the ordinance number. Do you know where I'm talking about? MR. YOVANOVICH: Could you tell me your page number. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, in the book it says 9A1 or Page 38. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thirty-eight. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thirty-eight in the agenda. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll just read what my question is. So when it says "adding the Airport Carlisle Mixed -Use Subdistrict," is that the area in red? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. That's all I wanted. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I've got two binders. One for the Comp Plan -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh yeah, no, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why I need that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: So there were -- and Mr. Trebilcock's available to answer any questions you have regarding the transportation analysis and the impacts on the roads, specifically Orange Blossom, if those become questions that you may have. Page 5 of 100 Packet Pg. 9 April 6, 2023 5.A.a But as you know, your staff is recommending approval of both projects, both the Growth Management Plan amendment as well as the implementing PUD, and your Transportation staff specifically is recommending approval to both as being consistent with the Growth Management Plan provisions that they review and analyze for not only PUDs but for Growth Management Plan amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, what you say is correct, I learned recently from Mr. Mulhere, but it I think you might want to bring everyone up to date with respect to the 130 feet, because that was an open item. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, and I'll do that now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Why don't you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. There was a commitment to our neighbors -- you received letters of support from the two residential neighborhood -- residential neighbors to a setback of 130 feet. We're committed to 130-foot setback. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So if we need to modify the table to make that clear, we are committed to the 130-foot setback from that western PUD property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to correct the record on that before we went too far down the road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you. The project, in summary, is basically a 336-unit multifamily Class A residential development with 22.6 percent of the units being committed to income restricted, 3 8 of which will be at the 100-percent-or-below income threshold median income and 38 of which will be at the 80 percent and below. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Say that again, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty-eight at the 100 percent and below and 38 at the 80 percent and below, so -- median income. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: As a specific number? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Seventy-six total? MR. YOVANOVICH: Seventy-six total. That -- for those of you who may be new -- and I know that Mr. Schumacher for sure. I don't know if Mr. Sparrazza was around when we did -- just so you know where the 22.6 percent came from is for a long period of time, when we were asking for income -- I mean, sorry -- density increases, staff, rightfully, tried to get us to commit to do as much affordable housing or income -restricted housing as possible. Their standard number was 30 percent. Our number, basically, was 20 percent. And they said, well, until you can prove to us that our 30 percent number doesn't work, we're going to stick with 30 percent. So a little over a year ago -- I think it's a little over a year ago, somewhere between a year or two ago, a client of both Mr. Mulhere and mine came forward with an actual pro forma to show you what we can physically afford to build and have a project that we could finance. So the long and short of it, in order to get financing for the project, the bank wants to make sure you have the potential to earn a certain percent of the money you invest. And if you can't show you have the ability to earn that potential percentage return, they're not going to finance the project. Then you're going to get -- then you're going to get zero affordable housing. So based upon cost of land, cost of permitting, cost of construction, cost of maintaining the facilities, we provided the analysis, showed you what the market rates are versus what the restricted rates would be, what the income would be assuming we leased up the project. And at that time, when interest rates were lower, we could -- we could afford, actually, 22.6 percent if you broke it out with half of those units being at the 100 percent and below and half of the units being at the 80 percent and below. So that's why you're seeing that number. It's a unique number, and you'll see that number Page 6 of 100 Packet Pg. 10 April 6, 2023 5.A.a carried forward in other petitions that Mr. Mulhere and I and others are bringing forward in the future. So it's an odd -- it's an odd number, but I thought you needed to understand where that number came from. So we did share with staff and then the Planning Commission the numbers and the math and why we could not go to 30 percent and still can't go to 30 percent. And, candidly, it's going to be a stretch to get to the 22.6 percent with the change in income -- interest rates that are being charged today. So as an overview, the project basically keeps the Carlisle exactly like it is. It will be on a little bit smaller footprint; thus, the request for a .65 FAR, floor area ratio. Typically, projects are coming forward with a .60 floor area ratio. So the .65 is related to the existing Carlisle. There will be no changes there. There will be no changes to the access for the Carlisle. And, again, we have no access through the Carlisle to Orange Blossom. You heard in the emails, and we kept hearing at the neighborhood information meetings not only for this project but for another project that I'm involved in in the same quadrant, that we're at a tipping point. Now, they're referring to a tipping point as far as traffic goes, but we're at a tipping point with regard to income -restricted affordable housing. So we're at a point now -- and you're going to see a lot of projects, and hopefully you're going to see some more either by right or through the zoning process based upon the legislature providing incentives for developers to come forward and bring forward affordable housing. Every project you're going to see from this point forward is going to be on a major road. Every project you see from this point forward is going to add traffic. Every project that you see from this point forward is going to slow down how quickly you can get from Point A to Point B in Collier County. But every project that you see from this point forward is going to meet your transportation concurrency laws, and this project is no exception; we meet the transportation concurrency laws for purposes of this project. So we're at a crossroads. We're at a tipping point. Pick whatever words you want to use. Are we or are we not going to provide the private sector an opportunity to participate in helping to solve a housing crisis? And we're bringing several projects forward. This is one of many that I'm working on. And we will see how we fare as we go through this process, because you're going to see like you see tonight -- or today neighborhoods that are not happy about the potential impacts to their community. I don't belittle their feelings, but we have to address this one way or another, or the housing won't be here, the employees won't be here, and the overall quality of life in Collier County will go down if we do not have workers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to take this opportunity right now to ask that we have no expressions of any kind from the audience. MR. YOVANOVICH: They don't have to agree. This is exactly what we experience at neighborhood information meetings when we go through this process. We believe what we say when we're at the podium. And I do believe -- I've been here a lot longer than probably most people -- not longer than everybody, but a lot longer than most people in this room, and it has gotten harder and harder for people to find affordable, safe, decent housing in Collier County. And we have to decide what we want to do, because if we don't provide it, they'll live somewhere else, and once they can find a job somewhere else, they're just going to stay where they are and not come here. So those are my opening comments. I'll turn it over to Bob to take you through the details of the master plan and the project, and we're available to answer any questions. I'd like to get through our presentation first if at all possible before any questions but, obviously, ask questions whenever you deem. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do have two basic questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Chairman, thank you. I'm sorry, I forgot I can push my button. I was just at another meeting where we don't Page 7 of 100 Packet Pg. 11 April 6, 2023 5.A.a have a button, and I forgot, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Proceed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The current zoning -- because I see something saying that, like, technically the zoning is agricultural. But what is the actual zoning right now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, technically, it is agricultural. And in Collier County when the Growth Management Plan was originally adopted, the vast majority of the land in Collier County was zoned agricultural, so it's kind of a holding category, if you will, until the Comp Plan and people come in and rezone the property. So, technically, it is agricultural. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So right now what -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, Commissioner. The short answer to your question is it's agricultural with a conditional use. MR. YOVANOVICH: True. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That could be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I was focused on the vacant piece. You're right, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the conditional use right now is? MR. YOVANOVICH: The conditional use is for the group housing for the Carlisle. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which is considered residential or mixed use? MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, it could be institutional, residential. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: See, what I'm getting at is I'm trying to just figure out where this would lie with this Live Local. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're proposing on the vacant land is actually better than the Live Local for income -restricted categories. Under the Live Local, 120 percent and below would be the living category. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think -- I will let you give your presentation, but that's -- I would think that that's really interesting for me when I'm making, you know, a recommendation with my vote to see, you know, what could you do -- could you just do this by right now that we have this Live Local or much of, you know, what you're asking for with this Live Local. That, I think, is important to know just, first of all, because this legislation is new, and it's important for us to know the impact and how it affects petitions, you know, like the one that, you know, is before us right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, it would have to have a larger percentage of affordable housing. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the law doesn't take effect until July 1. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, right. And then it would also have to have 65 percent residential, I believe, as well, the proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, yes. Mr. Bosi, did you want to say something? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I won't belabor the details at this point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Two questions. How -- the Carlisle, obviously, in its right, does group -care facilities as it is. How does this project tie into this, or is this completely separate where it's just going to be residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'll take away some of Bob's thunder. What we're doing is we will be sharing the access off of Airport Road with the Carlisle. They'll go to the left to come to our project, and they'll keep going straight to go into the Carlisle. We will be providing some additional parking for the Carlisle on our property that's currently being provided off site of the Carlisle at the Italian -American Club property. So the relationship there will be we'll provide some additional parking for them, and we'll share some Page 8 of 100 Packet Pg. 12 April 6, 2023 5.A.a infrastructure. But as far as -- they'll be totally separate from an operational standpoint and no interconnection. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Second question is you said you had two letters of recommendation from neighbors. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Which two were those? MR. YOVANOVICH: From neighbors. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: From neighbors, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: From neighbors, yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it would be the immediately adjacent neighbors right here. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Along the back, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where the apartment complex is proposed to go, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I didn't point out, and I should have, this is also an apartment complex right here. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you probably know that. And so is Arbour Walk. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT. Yes. Rich, you talked a lot about traffic. You talked about the -- of course, levels of service. And this may be something that staff will have to address during their presentation. But I vaguely recall my days with the county, there was a significant objection to the widening of Orange Blossom Road going west from Airport -Pulling and, in fact, it was a pretty significant issue in regards to the communities not wanting that portion of the road widened. Now we're facing a situation where had it been widened, we would not have -- be discussing the significant impact of traffic. So either that's something Mike Sawyer may be able to answer, or do you recall, or part of your testimony, you want to raise that issue? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we can, and I tried to briefly bring that up, yes. And Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Trebilcock can get into greater detail. Yeah, the community asked the Commission to restrict it and keep it at the two lanes that existed at the time. We have minimal traffic going on Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: There will be -- there are other projects -- Orange Blossom is a road that's traveled; there's no question. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was always intended to be a connector from Goodlette-Frank Road all the way to Livingston. It was always intended to be on the master plan. That's what it was supposed to be. Yes, they restricted it to two lanes. That's fine, but that means because you only have two lanes, you're going to carry more traffic on two lanes versus four lanes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. Okay, thanks. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere here on behalf of the applicant. I'll try not to repeat what questions and what information Rich already provided. But in response a little bit, Commissioner Klucik, to your question about the ag zoning, if you look at what's on the visualizer, it's our county's comp -- Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map and the Future Land Use Element through policy identify what types of uses should go where within the county. It's required by the state. And so any of those ag-zoned pieces that are designated either urban or activity center or industrial where the zoning does not allow that but the Future Land Use tells you what should go there, it's only a matter of time before that changes. There are still -- probably relatively few, but Page 9 of 100 Packet Pg. 13 April 6, 2023 5.A.a there are still some ag pieces in the urban area of Collier County. This is one of them. And this is the zoning map, so you can see clearly that it is presently zoned ag right here. And just briefly, presently to the north of us right here, that parcel is zoned ag, but that will be converted to commercial. It's got the allowance for commercial. And then you've got the Italian -American Club parcel just north of that. This is the PUD master plan. A fair amount of information on there but, as Rich said, the total parcel size is 27.78 acres. Tract A which will -- houses the Carlisle, is 13.21 acres. Tract B, which will house the apartment complex, is 14.57 acres in size. And the commitment -- well, actually, there's a slide that shows it better, so I'll wait and get to that. So that's your PUD master plan. It shows the required landscape buffers, the surrounding land use, and the deviations we requested. This is a colorized plan which shows the layout -- the general layout of the development. Rich mentioned that we would be providing some parking. Well, presently, even in this aerial, you can see some offsite parking in this area here for the Carlisle. By agreement, they're parking a significant number of vehicles on the undeveloped portion of the Italian -American Club. When the Italian -American Club gets developed, that's not going to be developed for them. And it's not that they don't meet the LDC requirements for parking. It's that the amount of employees that they have demands a higher amount of parking spaces; shift work. And so we will be providing -- is it 80, a minimum? A hundred and two spaces on this site that we'll construct that will support the Carlisle, and those are generally located in this area. Shared entrance, as Rich indicated. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could you go back. Yeah, I guess it's a little confusing because, of course, you're showing an elbow, and now we have something that's kind of the opposite of the elbow. MR. MULHERE: I'll try to -- so traffic will come in here. You'll have a circle. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. I'm sorry. The parcel shows an elbow that would start in the, you know, top left corner and then go down and then go across, and this is a different shape. I'm just trying to orient. MR. MULHERE: I'll show you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is just a portion of that elbow? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. This is just the --here. I'll just clear this. So you would include -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the section that you said was -- okay, all right. And that section there is the section that isn't really part of that parcel that you've had highlighted as an elbow. That's the part that's just above it that you just mentioned? MR. MULHERE: That's where the Carlisle is, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's existing. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which isn't changing? MR. MULHERE: It is not changing. I can briefly tell you -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's just tied in because it's -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's actually -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're working it into your proposal, yeah. MR. MULHERE: It's actually in my presentation. This design will incorporate stormwater for the entire site. We'll incorporate the additional parking needed. But also, interestingly enough, the Carlisle was approved in the early'90s prior to the county establishing a floor area ratio for these types of facilities, CCRCs, ALFs. So they got approved through a conditional -use public -hearing process. Since probably 1995, or somewhere around that time, the county has applied a floor area Page 10 of 100 Packet Pg. 14 April 6, 2023 5.A.a ratio, because these are really not residential dwelling units. You know, they are -- people live there, but they're supported. So the Carlisle presently would not meet that requirement. They exceed the 0.45 floor area ratio, which is why we're requesting a floor area ratio of 0.65, which has been granted numerous times through the PUD process. So this will actually take a nonconforming use, which is to benefit the Carlisle, and make it conforming. There are challenges with nonconforming uses in terms of what can you replace that with for any reason there's any destruction. So making it conforming is very beneficial for them. The buffers adjacent to Orange Blossom is a 20-foot Type D; to the north, since we're adjacent to commercial, it's a 10-foot buffer; to the south it's a like use, multifamily, it's a 10-foot Type A; 20-foot adjacent to Airport Road; and there will be an enhanced buffer adjacent to the residential to the west. So that's going to include an 8-foot concrete block stucco wall and enhanced plantings as well. This is a rendering of that western perimeter if you were looking at it from the adjacent residential perspective. This is a rendering of the proposed multifamily project, and a little closer view. This exhibit here shows those adjacent single-family homes and the setbacks from them, and this is the property line. And the setback from the property line to the closest multifamily structure is a hundred and -- slightly greater than 131 feet. The distance to the actual structures is significantly greater than that; here and here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where do you foresee, or is it not, you know, specified, and it will just, you know, kind of organically unfold, but where would you see the workforce housing or the income -restricted housing? MR. MULHERE: It's throughout, throughout those buildings. There's no particular unit designated, and I don't think the county actually wants us to designate particular units. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right. That's my question. I just am curious as to how that -- how that ends up unfolding. MR. YOVANOVICH: The way it works is we have to do an annual PUD monitoring report, and we have to show the 76 units on our annual PUD monitoring report, and we have to show the 38 that are the 100 percent category, 38 that are in the 80 percent category, and then we have to show that we're either renting it and verify we're renting it to people who meet those income qualifications or that it's vacant and eligible to be rented to people who make those income -restricted categories. So we have an ongoing obligation annually to -- and we can be audited at any time, but we have an obligation to provide an annual accounting to how we're meeting those requirements. We -- at other times we've been asked -- I think you were around at that time where staff said, hey, we want you to identify X percent of the three -bedrooms at each income category, Y percent of the two -bedrooms, and Z percent of the one -bedrooms. And what we said to you then and we say to you now is it's hard enough to make the project pencil out but, two, the market's going to tell us if we need one -bedrooms, if we need two -bedrooms, or we need three -bedrooms to satisfy those requirements. So we need the flexibility to be able to satisfy the demand. And the more restrictions you put on us probably makes it harder to provide -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not saying that. I know -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I was just wondering if there were designated areas or -- you know, it seems to me the better way to go is for there not to be. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not. But I'm anticipating some public comments that you're going to hear that they would like to see more specificity as to the number of three -bedrooms, the number of two -bedrooms, the number of one -bedrooms, and -- Page 11 of 100 Packet Pg. 15 April 6, 2023 CHAIRMAN FRYER: On behalf of the court reporter, I'm going to ask speakers who have been recognized, nonetheless, to please refrain from talking over one another. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Klucik and I do that quite a bit; I apologize. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I used to think it was my beard that caused me to do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Younger. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That didn't help. MR. MULHERE: Mike, did you want to -- This is a perspective that shows the view from a pedestrian in the adjacent single-family looking eastbound towards the project. Yes, they'll be able to see some of the building, but with this landscape buffer and 8-foot wall, that will direct the perspective to the higher level. I think Rich already went over this. I'm not going to repeat that. There are similar projects throughout the county and more in the works. Lord's Way First Assembly was approved for 384 units on 19.1 acres; that is 25 dwelling units per acre. Blue Coral was approved 234 units on 9.35 acres; that's 25 units an acre. Briarwood was 320 units on 14.07; that's almost 23 units an acre, 22.7. A project was recently approved in Lely Resort on nine acres for 184 units; 20 units an acre. And then there's the Randall Curve project out in the Oil Well -- vicinity of Oil Well and Immokalee, which is probably the first multifamily project out in that area, which is 20.5 units per acre. We had a NIM. It was very well attended. On September 26th, 153 members were in attendance. I'm sure the public can share their thoughts of the major issues, but from the tape and audio, we've highlighted the issues as traffic; access related to Orange Blossom; the design, particularly building height; and property development standards; and the incomes for the affordable housing units to be served and the number of affordable housing units. We subsequently met at the Monterey clubhouse with the Orange Blossom Alliance which is -- consisted of the leadership of those communities along Orange Blossom. That was on February 7th. And in response to the feedback that we received at the NIM, we did make changes. We originally proposed a five -story building, which we've reduced to four stories. We removed any access from Tract B, this multifamily project, to Orange Blossom. There is an existing -- I think it's a right turn only, but there is an existing access that the Carlisle can use, and that will remain in place, but we will have no access from the multifamily project. With Norm's help -- we did hear from some neighbors on the east side of Airport Road, and perhaps it would help if I got -- well, I was thinking an aerial, which I know is way up here. But -- so Lone Oak, which is, you know, right here, I believe has just the one access out to Airport. You also have Windward Isles right here. The original access was a little further to the north, right about here. And there was concerns that those U-turn movements from folks exiting this project and then heading northbound on Airport would conflict with folks from Lone Oak and Windward Isles' ability to get out onto Airport Road. There was also a concern that more traffic would head north and then go down Orange Blossom. And so what we did was move that access further south so that the U-turning movements now occur further to the south and are, A, less likely, that is some traffic will head south on Airport and will reduce the conflicts. And, of course, Norm can answer any detailed questions, but reduce the conflicts for folks who are exiting, you know, for example, Lone Oak or Windward Isles. Norm can speak specifically, but we did do a specific traffic count study on Orange Blossom to determine the actual traffic versus the initial estimates, and the TIS was updated with that. We improved the landscaping and design at the entrance feature at Airport Road, and then we increased the setbacks to the west to 130 feet, which we committed to and for which we received letters of support from a couple of the single-family homeowners on Anthony Court. The p.m. peak -hour trips are 343. We don't create any significant or adverse impacts in Page 12 of 100 Packet Pg. 16 April 6, 2023 5.A.a this area as it relates to the roadway networks in accordance with the county's concurrency management plan. There's sufficient capacity on the roadway to accommodate this development. Based on the turn lane results -- the turn lane analysis results performed, the turn lane improvements are warranted for the Airport Road main access, and we'll make those improvements at the time of Site Development Plan. And as I mentioned, the p.m. peak hour two-way trips are capped at 343. Some other questions that came up was, were we going to try to access Yarberry Lane to make a connection to this project. We are not. There is no access to or from Yarberry. And the only egress, as I indicated, on Orange Blossom is for the Carlisle. A barrier -- I forgot to mention that a barrier to the median cut will be utilized at the southern egress to prevent immediate U-turn movements which will further force that south -- further south, which will reduce those conflicts that I talked about. And we do have that emergency access. There's already a connection, an easement allowing connection to Bear Creek. And that shows the emergency access into Bear Creek. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me. Would you say a word about how that is controlled, and by that I mean limited to emergency vehicles. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I mean, it's -- it could be either gate controlled or a temporary barrier. There is an easement that actually allows for connection here, but both -- as the developer's consultants and also the county, we didn't think it was appropriate to put, you know, a full access here running traffic through this existing development. But we do have that emergency access. So they can access either through our project or through their project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Mechanically, though, are you going to use a Knox box? How are you going to control it? MR. MULHERE: Typically that's how it's done, says Norm. So we'll coordinate with the Fire and Sheriffs Department on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: This is a -- just sort of a blow-up of that right -out that exists today for the Carlisle and will continue to exist for the Carlisle only, because the intersection's right here. So it's fairly close. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commssioner. MR. MULHERE: That concludes my presentation, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I Googled if for the benefit of those in the audience that are like me and don't know what a Knox box is. I now know it's, apparently, a key box that the Fire Department would have access to, and then they would be able to -- MR. MULHERE: I think it's done either that way, or there's actually an electronic -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's done electronically. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's almost like a garage door opener. You press a button. It allows emergency, EMS, fire, police, anybody to get through quickly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is one of several, possibly, effective ways of prohibit public access but allowing for emergency and, of course, emergency access is important to everyone if there is -- if the emergency involves the main access, you want your emergency vehicles to have a way to get in and out. Okay. Let's see. We've got Commssioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. I just wanted to double-check with anyone from the great commission board up here and also the petitioner. I believe we are still looking at the AMI, area median income, still being at 98,6-. That hasn't changed yet, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think -- it's annual, and I don't think the new annual number has come out. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: The new one has come out yet, correct? Okay. Page 13 of 100 Packet Pg. 17 April 6, 2023 5.A.a Great. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's correct. That's for a family of four, assuming two wage earners. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Two, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or four. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's all online. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the total family income. It's the total family income. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Household income. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. If you would help me understand again the density. So we have A and B, and A and B are the elbow, or A is the elbow and -- you've got to help me understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. I will. Let's just get the master plan. A is that rectangle, which is the Carlisle. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That goes -- yeah, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it goes in a north/south direction, and then B is elbow, upside down L, whatever you want, that's Tract B. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And so your density for B is -- the proposed density is going to be 23? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you look at -- the county does it one of two ways. Overall, 27.8-acre density, that would be roughly 12 units an acre. But if you wanted to focus purely on net density for Tract B, it would be 23. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that's what I'm trying to figure out is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I'm looking at -- I'm looking at the staff report, and they walk through density. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So Tract B would be 23 acres if you just pulled that out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Twenty-three per acre. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then Tract A would be what density? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it would -- that's the floor area ratio for the Carlisle, and that's 26.5. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And that was at -- and then if you combine those, the whole project ends up being 12; is that right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no. No, no, no. The Carlisle itself is standalone. It's 350 beds is my understanding. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, here's what I'm looking at, so maybe staff can answer the question. But it says in the staff report, the proposed residential density for the entire subdistrict is 12.1 dwelling units per acre. And I'm just trying to understand that versus the net residential density for Tract B. MR. BOSI: The manner in which you calculate density for a mixed -use project is over the entire course of the entire project, including commercial, institutional, nonresidential, the commercial being -- or the Carlisle being institutional. Commercial is included in the gross density. So we provide you 12.1, I think, units per acre as a gross density. But on the tract, Tract B, is -- it calculates to 23 units an acre. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And so when you're saying 12, that would apply to Tract A and B combined? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. But, really, the project -- the housing project that's at issue is 23? MR. BOSI: Correct. Page 14 of 100 Packet Pg. 18 April 6, 2023 5.A.a COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to follow up on that if I may, because it touches on -- it really centers on the issue that is most significant to me with this proposal. The way assisted living facility dwellings are calculated is based upon the assumption that they are commercial in nature rather than residential, and so you use intensity measured at floor area ratio, FAR, and that, effectively, takes that out of the mix when you calculate the actual density, because those people in the ALF, that's where they dwell. That's their dwelling units. And so if you look at both of these lots to see how many people reside there or are dwelling there, you're going to have to add the Carlisle, which is whatever it is, 350, plus the proposed 336. And, you know, I understand that the calculation that's been done by the applicant is accepted by the county, but I think in reality, the way it -- the feel that it has for neighbors, let's say, is that this -- these two tracts are occupied by 700-plus residents. And I think we have to keep that in mind. And when you eliminate the people who are actually dwelling on Tract A, you get, I think, an unrealistic picture of density. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. No, I know. It seems as though what they've done is they've just set Parcel A to zero, and so it's just basically you're dividing it, then, by twice as many acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's pretty much right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which if you have a lot of people dwelling there, granted, they're not going to be engaged in maybe as much activity that affects, you know, externally as -- you know, as others by the nature of who's there. But it -- but, yeah, it really seems like the density -- in theory, it's 12 but, in fact, it's actually -- that's an interesting number. It doesn't really tell us the whole picture. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I think that's exactly right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and that's why we provide the net number as well. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I just want to finish up on that thought that to me the -- and I have not decided how I'm going to vote on this yet. I'm thinking out loud. And to me, the most significant issue is the density potential incompatibility. When you recast the occupancy on Tract A to what it really is, you're going to have lots more people there than -- than compares to or is similar to the surrounding areas which are more in the 12 and 13 range. Again, I'm not -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, yeah, please. Members of the public are going to have their opportunity to speak, and we will -- we will allow for that at the proper time, and I'd just ask that you give us the courtesy of not interrupting. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah -- no. And I don't want to at all imply that -- obviously, Mr. Yovanovich, you clearly have, you know, the 23, you know, as the density for Tract B, so I don't want to suggest that you've been anything but -- you know, but candid in, you know, offering that calculation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And let me -- a couple things. First of all, remember that the Carlisle is not a standard residential community. It's a senior living community, and the county looks at it as a floor area ratio versus density because of that reason, because they don't travel as much, they have -- they have their own transportation through buses, et cetera. The county historically would say and -- before -- before they did the FAR, they would say, four senior housing units equals one residential unit. That was the typical conversion because of all of those factors. So when you say the 350, that's not 350 typical units. That would be less than 90. I can't Page 15 of 100 Packet Pg. 19 April 6, 2023 5.A.a do that number in my head, but it's right around 90. So let's be careful about saying 350 assisted living units is the equivalent of 350 apartments, if you -- however you want to go about doing that. The real factor you have to look at is there's no question we're adding 336 units, and what does it do from an infrastructure of the county's standpoint, and what does it do for addressing the need for income -restricted housing. But it's not apples -- the Carlisle is not the same thing as a typical multifamily project from a density standpoint and an impact standpoint. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We really don't know that. And I'm not taking away from the point you're making, because that's -- that's how the county looks at it, and I accept that. But one factor to me, at least, that is not taken account of when you view it that way is that people in an assisted living facility are going to have more visitors coming to them day in and day out -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I can tell you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, Mr. Yovanovich. And people who live in apartments probably don't have as many. And so until we have a study showing the number of visitations to assisted living versus the ingress and egress of the occupants, we really don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you do know. You do know because there's an ITE manual that does -- factors in trips generated for that type of use, which factors in visitors. And Mr. Trebilcock will come up and tell you that there is a dramatic decrease in the number of people -- the trips that are generated, including visitors, to senior housing versus -- whether or not I have anybody coming to visit me at my apartment or not, the trips that are generated from my apartment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Interestingly, the ITE is, in my judgment, flawed in one significant way, and that is that it paints a national picture. It doesn't look, for instance, at Collier County. It doesn't take account of, for instance, the family relationships that might be here where there might be more visitation to people in assisted living than somewhere else in the United States. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we can have that discussion. But I tell you that Mr. Trebilcock done an analysis of apartment complexes in Collier County compared to the national average in the ITE, and, ironically, they're the same. So the ITE is a legitimate tool, for not only nationally, but for Collier County. We have tested it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anyone else want to be heard on this at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. (Cell phone ringing.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm sorry. I thought I turned that off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The Vice Chairman wants me to acknowledge that everyone here should please turn their phones off. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did a test. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I turned it off. I just want to state -- and I understand the Chair's point, but I do have to accept the national -- what they would deem as the national average or -- unless we have specific -- unless Norm has gone out and actually done a traffic study. I mean, we can assume something, but if there is testimony that says this is what the typical traffic pattern displays and this is what we would approve -- and I'm looking forward to hearing from Norm, then, on this, because we can -- we can make an assumption, but I want -- I want to hear the real facts. I don't know if he's ready to do that now, or do you want to proceed? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's do it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do it now. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock, a professional engineer, certified planner with over 30 years experience here in Collier County. We prepared the traffic study for the project. Page 16 of 100 Packet Pg. 20 April 6, 2023 5.A.a And as Rich had mentioned, the assisted living, we do use the ITE trip generation, because that is the standard that Collier County has for trip generation. So there wasn't any particular one run. So we do use that. We actually -- we use beds. Conservatively, we usually use the overall square footage for the Carlisle as well, so it actually created a higher trip generation than typically you get for beds -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pardon me for interrupting, but I want to focus you on the exact question that's on the floor. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich says that you have done a study, your firm has done a study, that has concluded that assisted living facility traffic in Collier County is the same as the ITE. And don't correct me, Mr. Yovanovich, because the record is the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to have her read it back to you. What I said was he did apartment complexes. So if you'd like her to read it back, I'll have her read it back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, that's fine. So you did not do a study on assisted living facilities in Collier County? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir, not specifically. What he meant was for the multifamily portion of it. But, again, we do use that as the adopted. The ITE trip generation is what we do use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the record will speak for itself, of course, but that clarifies it for me. I thought I heard Mr. Yovanovich saying that you had done a study that says assisted living facility traffic in Collier County is the same as the ITE national study. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Yeah, he didn't say that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He said apartments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: It was for apartments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then I stand corrected. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Is there anything else or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not for me. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do have a question. And, Norm, from a standpoint, what is the impact in comparison to a typical apartment building? The ITE states that a -- is it less intense or more intense or the same or what? From an ITE standpoint. Because that's your standard and that's the national average. And I'm -- you did not go out and do an actual traffic study? MR. TREBILCOCK: As far as -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did you actually go out and measure traffic at the Carlisle in and out? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. No, we did not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you did use the IT -- so from the ITE standpoint, assisted living facility, continuing care facility, whatever we're calling that, how does that compare to a typical apartment building from the standpoint of trip generation? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. When you typically compare beds to units -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- the assisted living is a less intensive. What we actually did for the Carlisle is we use the total square footage of the facility. And so that actually creates a higher trip generation in the analysis. So that's what we did in the report. So for the Carlisle assisted living facility, its p.m. peak hour is 178 p.m. peak -hour trips. That's 350 occupied beds. But what was really controlling was the larger square footage of the development. If you just use beds themselves, that's a much less trip generation. I have that -- I can find that and get that number for you. Page 17 of 100 Packet Pg. 21 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MR. MULHERE: I just want to say, Norm is saying he used the most conservative calculation. MR. TREBILCOCK: Which is the highest trip generation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which is the highest? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But how does that compare to a typical apartment complex from the standpoint the ITE -- which is deemed to be more intense? MR. TREBILCOCK: So they're basically comparable here -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- is really what happens when we use the square footage, which is the highest number, because -- so, in other words, for our 336 units, we're at 165 p.m. peak -hour trips. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: For the 350 assisted living beds at that larger square footage, we're at 178. So they're actually comparable here because we're using conservative. But if I use just 350 beds and not the square footage, it would be a much lower number per what was referenced. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I guess I was just going to -- I think -- I think I understand now that you erred on the side of a more intense number -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- which I'm glad to hear that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from the dais? Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm going back to this traffic. So your a.m. peak exit's at 97. So if you've got 78 units that are affordable housing, how are you calculating -- that's less than one car per unit. I would think that affordable housing, you have two cars per unit, a.m. peak hours. If you've got a working-class family, both of those individuals would be leaving at that peak hour. What's the calculation on how you split that out? MR. TREBILCOCK: So that's -- again, this is the multifamily housing. I mean, the reality is, for any development, the actual numbers that we find are less than what we would just say intuitively "everybody's leaving at the same time." This isn't reality in terms of any residential development. You have people that work different times of day, some folks that work from home. So this reflects the reality of how trips, you know, function within a community. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So is that a.m. peak hour a blend of 8:00 to 10:00 -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- 7:00 to 9:00? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, I see your point. That's -- a.m. peak for traffic is the hours between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. That's the peak -hour period. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: So it would be that peak hour within that period of time. Such as for a p.m. peak, it's between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. So it would be the peak hour within that time frame. So I know a lot of -- that's the -- I know it's troublesome for a lot of folks. Intuitively, they say, hey, there's 336 units; everybody's leaving at the same time. And that's really not the reality because there are different lifestyles and people work different shifts. You've got first shift, second shift, third shift for folks. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I understand. I get that. MR. TREBILCOCK: But this is typically the peak periods, and that's what we look to do, and that's why the county uses the p.m. peak hour, because that's the highest trip generation overall Page 18 of 100 Packet Pg. 22 April 6, 2023 5.A.a that they experience on the road network. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. And so as your --what you just addressed, which was specific to the multifamily, correct, that was what you were just discussing? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That is where you actually have done your own analysis to compare our local situation with national numbers? MR. TREBILCOCK: We had overall, but this is using ITE standards as required by the county. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. But what I'm saying is Mr. Yovanovich indicated that you have compared and your analysis -- and I guess I'll just ask you -- and your analysis, is that national standard actually probably, you know, an accurate standard based on what you've looked at and the data that you've compiled yourself? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, it's comparable to the local conditions. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So when you're talking about these a.m. peak and p.m. peak hours and this idea that it's not necessarily intuitive, you're saying that, yeah, that that actually -- it also bears out in your experience locally that the national numbers make sense and should be applied? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir; yes, sir. That's why the county adopts them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything else from the dais? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I have a few comments. I want to be sure that with respect to concessions that have been made and issues between the applicant and the county that have been resolved, that they're reflected accurately in the material that will find its way into the ordinance and not just like -- a picture, like a master plan, but text. And as I mentioned to staff on Tuesday when we met, there are a number of things that I just -- I want to be sure get locked in place. Not to change anything that has been agreed to, but just be sure that it is -- that it is accurately set forth and can happen by way of text in a number of different places. Developer commitments seems to be the easiest one, but it really doesn't matter to me as long as it finds its way into text. And the first one was the 130-foot setback; is it on the south or southwest corner? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the west. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The west corner. West side. MR. YOVANOVICH: West boundary, yes, of Tract B. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So the entire west side of Tract B will be 130 feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. MULHERE: Minimum. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Where would you prefer to see that in text? MR. YOVANOVICH: We would put that in the Development Standards Table itself. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. As a footnote? MR. YOVANOVICH: As a number, hard number. I think we have -- we have it measured -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. That's fine if that's where it is. Is it there now? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't -- yes. MR. MULHERE: No. We haven't submitted it. It was a condition from staff, but we have already revised the PUD document. Page 19 of 100 Packet Pg. 23 April 6, 2023 5.A.a CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So -- all right. So when we come time to a resolution, if the resolution happens to be favorable, we're going to ask that that appear in the development standards as text. Okay. All right. Then the emergency exit that we've already talked a little bit about on the south side, that certainly appears in the master plan. Is it anywhere in text and, if not, could it be so? MR. YOVANOVICH: We can -- yes, we can add that to the commitment section, the transportation portion of the PUD commitment section if you would -- and I'm looking real quick. We can absolutely include any of the transportation -related commitments we've made. We already have that we'll have no access for Tract B onto Orange Blossom. And if you want us to add a commitment that we will provide emergency access through Bear Creek to the south, we can add that as a commitment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, unless you can show me where it's already in text. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think it is already in the text. It's just on the master plan, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. The next one is your commitment, and it's not a height commitment, but it's a number of stories to four. Can we -- can we build that into the text? MR. YOVANOVICH: We can put that into the table, if it's not already there. I'm looking to see. It is. It says under the table under maxed zoned height, 55 feet not to exceed four stories. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's in the development standards? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's in the Development Standard Table, Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I think that's all I have. Let's see. We've got -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, we were asked to make a slight modification or slight modifications to the affordable housing provision, and it really deals with eliminating references to for -sale units. So on the visualizer you can see what we've been asked to delete regarding the income restrictions and data we need to apply for, and it had to do with owner -occupied units. Staff just wanted us, since we're providing rental, to clarify that it's just income related to rental units, essentially. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's everything we have as part of our -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hang on, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Of course. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've got three commissioners who want to be heard, starting with Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Just doublechecking, when you spoke of height, is that 55 feet actual structure, or does that convert to 60 actual? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sixty is the actual. And as you know, that's the tippy top. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Of the top of the crest of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You got it. The highest element of that is 60 feet, and the 55 feet is the zoned height, which is typically midpoint of the roof or parapet, things like that. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. Just quadruple checking. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So just to kind of summarize -- I'm a little slower. What could you put on this property without having to be here looking for a change? MR. YOVANOVICH: One unit per five acres. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's it. But consistent with the Growth Management Plan, Page 20 of 100 Packet Pg. 24 April 6, 2023 5.A.a which is what -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's just -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- the future plan is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. Consistent with the Growth Management Plan, depending on how we wanted to move forward. If we wanted to just move forward with -- and this is the reason it varies, because if we -- if we're not doing it with the Carlisle, then it's a different number. But since we're doing it with the Carlisle, we could do four units per acre base, and then we can use the standard affordable housing density bonus, which I think gets us, Mike, is that to 16? MR. BOSI: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sixteen units per acre over the entirety of the project, so -- but as -- you know, as we've told you, if that matrix worked, you wouldn't be seeing Growth Management Plan amendments because they just don't work financially to get to that 16 units per acre. So, theoretically, we could get to 16 units per acre if we use the existing Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan provisions. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What about height? MR. YOVANOVICH: Unlimited. It's basically what's compatible around. It doesn't -- there's no -- there's no prescribed height in your code. I find it hard to believe that a four-story building isn't compatible with a three-story building, so -- so you would look at those types of factors. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the -- and you mentioned -- your last comments before we started questioning you were the red line that you added. Can you put that back up? So those last-minute changes are, that you were asked to make, I guess, by staff? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what you're saying is is these units are all going to be rentals for the duration of their -- of the income -restriction period? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is the 30-year commitment, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: These are rental units, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Got it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No other person is signaling at this time, so I assume nothing further from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Sorry. Just one more question. When we were doing this in conjunction with the Carlisle, what is the Carlisle's ownership of the apartment complex? MR. YOVANOVICH: Of the apartment complex? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not involved at all in the apartment complex. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Just shared entryway, then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Shared entryway is it, and then we have some parking for them on the apartment complex property. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no unity of ownership. They're totally separate from each other. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just confirmation, if you went to the 16 units per acre, would Page 21 of 100 Packet Pg. 25 April 6, 2023 5.A.a that basically take one floor out of it? Make it a three story -- besides financially killing it? I understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than killing the project? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess it would be -- I don't know. I'd have to figure out -- I don't know -- I don't know what number it would bring it down to, but we could figure that out. But it doesn't matter, because we looked at that. And it --the project just dies. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else from up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to take a midmorning break in 15 minutes. That will be 10:30. Let's see if we have time for staffs -- oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Yovanovich, were you finished? MR. YOVANOVICH: We are done, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bosi, staff s presentation? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, the Planning and Zoning director. Staff has reviewed the project both from a GMP consistency. Obviously the -- it is not consistent with the GMP without the approval of the submitted GMP amendment. Per code, the gross acreage is just over 12 units an acre as we said the actual utilization is more -- is 23 units an acre. What I would note in terms of overall consistency, the one thing that we looked at in terms of this corner, similar to some of the comments that were made by the applicant, there are -- each one of these corners of Orange Blossom and Airport Road are nonresidential. By every stretch of the imagined, that corner is considered more of a commercial industrial -- or not industrial, but institutional type of a use. The Bear Creek Apartments that sit to the south of this project were approved as an affordable housing project at the highest density that was allowed during the'90s. The project beneath that was approved as an affordable housing project at 12 units per acre. Below that, you start your industrial -- your industrial zoning land uses. So from a transition standpoint, we have an intersection, a nonresidential intersection that provides for a variety of institutional and commercial uses. And then we have a higher -- a higher density residential project being proposed at 23 units an acre. We've got a high residential density affordable housing -- prior affordable housing project that was approved at 14 units an acre. Then we have 12 units an acre stacked below that that was an affordable housing project of the '90s. So this area has clearly been designated and perceived by the county in past actions of this county as a higher intensity area allocated for affordable housing, and below that you have industrial use, and then below that you have an activity center. So from Pine Ridge Road up into Orange Blossom Ranch [sic], you have high intensity uses. This county incorporates -- or imports over 45,000 people a day to fill the economic needs of this county. So we are an importer of people. That relates to the traffic issues that we have. This is an opportunity to provide for affordable housing within an area that is -- that is south of an activity center, that is north of an activity center, that is clearly within the urbanized area. We feel that the density being proposed with the public benefit of, you know, just over 22 units an acre dedicated -- or 22 percent of the units being proposed being dedicated to income restrictions has true community benefit. The fact that the apartment complex will not access, ingress or egress, on Orange Blossom Ranch, is extremely important. So what that means is the intensity of this project will be designed to be incorporated and be absorbed by Airport Road and the volume of traffic and vehicles that are associated with that road. We feel that, and Transportation concurs, that there is capacity within that road system to handle the additional load. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD request and GMP request. Page 22 of 100 Packet Pg. 26 April 6, 2023 5.A.a I do have one aspect to put up, and this is related to the affordable housing commiment. We have added some additional robust language related to some of the concerns that were brought on by some of the adjoining property owners' concerns about the specificity. Unfortunately, we have not incorporated this with the applicant. There's nothing that's outside of -- there's nothing that's outside of what is required by the housing, the housing monitoring, and what's being proposed by the applicant. It's simply we provide a little bit more specificity in the text in terms of the monitoring, the income limits, and what's required -- what's required to ensure that these units are made available. One of the things that we have often dealt with during those affordable housing proposals is statements that it's unenforceable; that we haven't been able to monitor. I've had extensive conversations with Cormac Giblin, who is the interim Housing director, and he has indicated to me -- his conversations with the Public Services Division that maintains the monitoring for the affordable housing income, they -- once they are made aware of it and they are fully aware of these commitments, once it's approved, it's on the radar. They maintain a strict policy of making sure that they contact on a quarterly basis to make sure that these facilities are available and that they're adhering to the terms that are contained within the proposed language. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. This is the same thing that you showed me on Tuesday? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Comm ssioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Do we have this at all in our packet or anywhere? MR. BOSI: No, you don't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can it be provided in paper to the Planning Commssion before our break; is that possible? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just for clarification, B doesn't apply because those are related to owner -occupied units. That's a template that the Zoning division is using for projects for consistency. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So B comes out? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that agreeable with staff? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oaky. And we'll ask for the applicant's concurrence, unless you're ready to speak on it now. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was about to say, it looks like the only thing that really changed was B, and that doesn't apply, and if it does apply, the 68 needs to be 76. Other than that, I understand that. That makes all the sense in the world. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commssioner Klucik, did you have more? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that was -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Rich, can you put up that slide again with -- it was the chart that shows density. Because I want staff to address that as well. I want to get -- you had a little chart that kind of displayed the density. MR. YOVANOVICH: Bob, do you remember where that was? MR. MULHERE: No, but we could find it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask for something to be done during the break that may be exactly what you're going after. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I want -- I think it was Bob had that up, and -- it was just a simple chart. I wanted to -- Page 23 of 100 Packet Pg. 27 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Those are other projects, Mike. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, not that. It was a chart displaying the density, Tract A, Tract B, and a combination of the two. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have a slide, but I can read you the numbers, if that helps. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Please go ahead. I'd like to have that in the report. MR. YOVANOVICH: Tract B is 14.57 acres, and that comes to 23 units per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. Okay. Tract B? MR. YOVANOVICH: On Tract B. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And if you would take the entire parcel, holistically, it is how many units an acre? MR. YOVANOVICH: Twelve units per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Twelve units per acre. And, staff, do you concur with the way that was calculated? MR. BOSI: It's required by the code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: By the code. And you concur with it? MR. BOSI: But for transparency, we asked the applicant, and the applicant agreed that they were going to show what would the net acre be on Tract -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As you stated and what was stated in the report, if this was deemed to be part of the activity center, what would be the allowed density? MR. BOSI: The allowed density currently would be 16 units an acre, but remember the Board of County Commissioners just transmitted amendments to our GMP related to housing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: And we've recognized that 25 units per acre is the number that we are comfortable and we are trying to obtain related to affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because my -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But isn't that in a restricted area, in activity centers only, to go to 25? MR. BOSI: No. There's 25 units an acre within activity centers; 25 units an acre within the strategic opportunity sites, which are high -employment job creation centers; there's 25 units an acre that are along any of the transit lines that run throughout the urbanized area. So 25 units per acre throughout the major portion of the transportation network is being -- has been transmitted to the state as what we will allow as the new requirements related to projects that have affordable housing within them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, what I'm trying to get at is the standpoint of development. The intensity is far -- or deemed to be accessible. Based on any criteria that were going to be applied to this area, it's accessible right now, the density that's being proposed? MR. BOSI: With the -- with the approval of the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: With the GMP amendment. Because I'm reading the statement in the GMP amendment, and it says -- it basically says that we could achieve this under the county's identified activity center rules. So, basically, the argument of the density falls within all of the criteria that would -- deemed to be allowable, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that the way I'm looking? That's the answer. MR. BOSI: As I said, we're instructed by the LDC and the GMP to include the total gross acreage. That's 12 units -- that's 12.1 units an acre. You can get 16 units an acre with an affordable housing density bonus. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So there's nothing that we're approving here that would be deemed to be not accessible under an applicant's application for the allowed density in this area. And what you stated, the Board is now saying that it's -- they would go up to 25 units an acre? Page 24 of 100 Packet Pg. 28 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MR. BOSI: That's what was transmitted -- what was approved to be transmitted to the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here's what I would like to know after our break. I think there's been testimony from Mr. Trebilcock that -- just a rough calculation of the traffic -- or the density of assisted living facilities versus apartments is maybe one to four, and if that's the case and we've got 350 assisted livings, I would like to know where we are in relation to the 16 dwelling units per acre of affordable housing if we took the entire lot, the 27-plus acres, and added a quarter of the 350 occupants to the 336. It's a simple equation, but I'd just like to see how close we come to the 16 on that. And, Commissioner Shea, if you can within four minutes, and then we'd take a break. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just wanted to follow up with Mr. Bosi. Just so I understand -- in my mind I'm putting this in the right order. Under the current regulations, they can get 16 dwelling units per acre with affordable housing. The areas south of it that have affordable housing are in the same general area. So they want to go to 23. And the only reason we're going to 23 is in the future we would accept 23, or -- because we're actually giving them more for credit -- we've already given them credit for affordable housing to get to the 16. MR. BOSI: No. They have not submitted an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. They've submitted a GMP amendment. What they've put up in one of the slides that was shown is five individual projects that have been approved in the last two years that we have been over 20 units an acre when we have affordable housing projects that are being proposed. That's the standard that has been accepted by this county. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I don't care about the last ones because they're -- I don't want to get into all the individual ones. I'm just looking at this area. MR. BOSI: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And the affordable housing in the area is 14, 15, you said. MR. BOSI: The ones that were approved during the '90s, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. BOSI: And the density cap on the affordable housing at that time was eight units an acre. The Board of County Commissioners, based upon the ULI study of 2017, increased that density from eight units an acre to 12 units an acre if you're providing for affordable housing. Showing the transition in the greater need in the overall urbanization of this county in recognition of the need for higher densities to be able to provide for higher -- or for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza, can you do it in two minutes? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. Quick calculation comes to about 16.7, am I correct, as far as if we took 350 homes times .25, added that -- which is, like, 87, added that to the 336, gives you 426, -7? MR. YOVANOVICH: 427. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Divided by -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Twenty-seven. I just did 27. It came out to 16.3. So if I did that correct, we are very close to meeting that 16 units -- 16 dwelling units per acre if we were to have done nothing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just did --I'm sorry. I just did --what did you say, 427? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I think that was my -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I did 427 divided by 27, and that is -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: 16.3 or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- 15.8. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So we're definitely in the ballpark. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if you did the 27 -- for the complete record, if you did 27.8 Page 25 of 100 Packet Pg. 29 April 6, 2023 5.A.a times 16, that would be 444 total dwelling units. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Which we are under? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which we would be under if you did the 87-and-a-half plus the 336. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. Thank you both for your calculations. It's 10:29. We will take a break. We'll be in recess until 10:40. (A brief recess was had from 10:29 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've re-established our quorum on the dais, so let's return to session. Anything further from staff at this point? MR. BOSI: None from staff, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you very much. So now we're going to ask for questions from staff, and we'll start with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Mike, I don't know the answer to this, but when I look at the affordable housing side of this, it seems like, obviously, you can't put a lot of handcuffs on them because they're dealing with the financial feasibility of the study. But based on what we end up approving, they could put 78 one -bedroom apartments in there, and probably mostly one -bedroom apartments to make them affordable. Is there any way that we can put a restriction and say half of the 78 has to be two -- or some kind of a size on it? Because you're only going to serve a small portion of the community that are looking for low-income -- lower -income rentals at one bedroom. MR. BOSI: I mean, the Planning Commission, if it feels that that was an appropriate commitment, most certainly can impose that upon the applicant. That may prevent -- that may create some issues for the applicant, but that's well within your purview to have a specificity such as that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt -- Vice Chair Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. The -- we've had discussion upon discussion about floor area ratio and other issues in the past, as well as I cannot recall where we ever restricted the number of bedrooms and, in fact, we got into arguments one time about developments where they were so small that some of the members of the Planning Commission would not approve it when at that time it seemed like a practical alternative to solve some of these living challenges within the county. So I don't know. Is there -- have we ever restricted to one -bedroom? I don't know if we even could do that. MR. BOSI: If you have an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement as required by LDC Section 2.06.02 or 2.06 of the Land Development Code, it does get to that specificity towards where they call out the number of units that are restricted and the number of bedrooms that are associated with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But even if we restrict the bedrooms, I mean, there's no way we're going to be able to restrict the number of occupants. MR. BOSI: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's sort of -- it's a win -win or win -lose, I guess, from the standpoint -- it just -- we would -- we would still be faced with a problem of then, technically, of too many people living in the units, and we created the problem. MR. BOSI: What I would say is this is an apartment complex, so I imagine there would be a management issue that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, then the whole management issue. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The applicant put some material in that we've not -- at least not yet asked for a developer commitment, but their present intention, how they would -- how many single, double, and triple bedrooms they would have. So I think we've got an indication at least of what their present intentions are. Page 26 of 100 Packet Pg. 30 April 6, 2023 5.A.a Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we have -- yes, I'm sure we have what we think is going to be our mix, if you will. I just want to -- I don't know if the word "correct" is the right thing, but I recently did a project that actually used the affordable housing density matrix because it was a big enough parcel to be able to do that. Mike is right, we did identify the breakdown of the units, but that was our selection of the breakdown of the units. It was not mandated in order to get the bonus. We just had to meet a certain percentage of units, and we decided how to break that down. We could do that in that particular case. And what I've told you before, and I'm telling you now, is the hamstrings of telling me I've got to have X percent one -bedrooms, Y percent two -bedrooms, or Z percent three -bedrooms may miss the mark on what the real need is. There's a lot of need for younger new teachers to come here, and they want the one -bedroom mix. The important thing is, you're getting 76 units that are income restricted. Whether -- why would you not want to have 76 units fully occupied, and why would you want to put us in a position that if we miss the mix we have to leave them vacant because I didn't have enough people who wanted to come use the three -bedrooms? That's why we're -- that's why what we're asking you is don't get into that level of detail because you need the units, and let us fill the units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. And I happen to agree with you. I'm not asking for that kind of a commitment. All right. Let's now -- staff is finished with its presentation. No one is signaling at this point. So, Mr. Youngblood, how do we look with registered speakers, sir? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I have a dead battery in my microphone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our first speaker's going to be Dave Renner. He has been ceded time by several people. I'm going to read the names off, and if you could just raise your hand to let us know that you're here. William Eckels? (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I saw the hand. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Jeanette Provance? (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see the hand. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Bill Drackett? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Where's Mr. Drackett? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No Bill, okay. Marne Drackett? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Okay. No Marne. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I did not see a hand there. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Karen Flinn? (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Saw the hand. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Dan Flinn? (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hand. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: John King? Page 27 of 100 Packet Pg. 31 April 6, 2023 5.A.a (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do not see -- MR. YOUNGBLOOD: He's over here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Sorry. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Patricia Bradford? (Raises hand.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Ken Moffat? (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: See it, okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Linda Altemus? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No Linda, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So what does that do to our numbers, then, Mr. Youngblood, as far as time is concerned? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I've got three more. Let's see. Is this Tony Kinnear? Did I pronounce that right? (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I see your hand. Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Natalya Lvovich? (Raises hand.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Back there. And then, let's see. Joseph Lvovich? (Raises hand.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Okay. So that brings Mr. -- MR. SMITH: Lawrence Smith, I was here. And, Mr. Chairman, I have to be in court at 1:30. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you stand up to the microphone if you're going to address us. Identify yourself. MR. SMITH: My name is Lawrence Smith. I'm president of Bridgewater Bay Property Owners Association, and I have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Have you been sworn in? MR. SMITH: I submitted my thing. No, I have not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, if you're just talking about your scheduling, go ahead and speak, but if you're going to testify -- MR. SMITH: I have to be in court in front of Judge Collier about the APMS scandal at 1:30, so I'd -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You'll make that. MR. SMITH: I'll make that. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So, Mr. Youngblood, did you get a new -- Vice Chairman, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On all these folks that have waved, are they all in the same community? That's what I was wondering from the standpoint, are they being represented by one speaker, but are they -- is this a coalition or -- I guess I would -- I don't need the audience to answer that, but I would like the speaker who comes up to speak, you can address if these folks are from different residential areas and this is some kind of coalition that has come together and has ceded you the time. So if you could give some clarity on that so I have an understanding of who the people are that ceded the time and where they are located or at least where they come from and understanding holistically, I guess, from the objections, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you Mr. Renner? MR. RENNER: Yes. Page 28 of 100 Packet Pg. 32 April 6, 2023 5.A.a CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we won't start your time yet. You can answer the Vice Chairman's question first. MR. RENNER: Yes. We represent -- I'm representing -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We've got to get -- he's got to come up, because then we've got to get you on the microphone. Go ahead, thanks. Sorry. MR. RENNER: For the record, Dave Renner. I'm a resident of Monterey. It is one of the communities off of Orange Blossom. And I'm part of the leadership group representing the Orange Blossom/Airport Road Alliance, which is about 14 communities that run along Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that alliance was formed after the -- MR. RENNER: It's been around for about 15 years, before I was part of it. It's a long -running alliance really just to gather so we can have a common voice, meet, and have a single voice when dealing with issues like this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, wow, that's excellent. I think that's great for the community. But thank you. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, before you do, Mr. Youngblood, is your mic working now? So how much time, with all the time that's been ceded, does Mr. Renner have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: He is good for 55 minutes. MR. RENNER: I'm not going to go that long, don't worry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I just -- I want to remind everyone before you start that when you cede time, that means that you can't stand up later on and speak. That's what ceding your time means. So if everyone understands that, I just want to be sure that that's the case. So it's 10:52. You're on the air. Go ahead, sir. MR. RENNER: Mr. Chairman and the Planning Commission, first of all, just thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today and kind of voice the concerns of the residents. The slide I have up here now are the 14 communities that run along Orange Blossom and Airport Road surrounding where the applicant is proposing this New Haven project. It's over 3,300 households. And I can tell you, and the applicant saw at the neighborhood information meeting, there's overwhelming opposition to what they're proposing. And what I'm going to do today -- my presentation's about 20 minutes -- I'm going to walk through why the residents are opposing it and the overall position and viewpoints of the residents that are part of our Orange Blossom Alliance. But we have residents from all of these communities that are participating. And just as an example, we have a petition that has been running for opposing this project. We are now up to over 2,500 signatures on our petition opposing this. So, again, the vast majority of residents are against it. Before I go any further, I just want to -- and I'm sure all of you have driven along Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, okay. Just -- so who can -- where is this petition located and who can sign it? MR. RENNER: This is on change.org. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So I could have signed it? MR. RENNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Someone in Nebraska could sign it? Okay. MR. RENNER: I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it doesn't necessarily -- MR. RENNER: I could provide a list of the -- which shows the addresses of where these people are. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right. So of those 2,470 who have signed, are -- you know, what percentage of them do you think are actually in the area, in your coalition area? Page 29 of 100 Packet Pg. 33 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MR. RENNER: I believe 100 percent of them are -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. RENNER: -- residents of Naples, of Collier County. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well, residents of the county. MR. RENNER: Yes, residents of the county. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you speak to being more local? MR. RENNER: You mean to this area? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. MR. RENNER: To the Orange Blossom area? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, in the coalition. How many of those 2,470 would be considered eligible to be members of your coalition for the Orange Blossom area? MR. RENNER: Probably 80 to 90 percent. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. RENNER: I haven't added those numbers up, but what's -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I mean, you can understand that that does -- you know, that makes a difference if it's people who are actually there -- MR. RENNER: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: --in your local area, or if they're just people who are sympathetic to anyone who has a plight, which there are a lot of people like that. MR. RENNER: Yeah. No, I understand. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Thank you. That just helps us. MR. RENNER: This is one way just to display that people are upset and, obviously, you can see the group here today. Before I go any further, just talking about the areas that they're proposing this, along Orange Blossom/Airport Road, this is primarily a family -- full-time family residential area running from Goodlette Road all the wait to Livingston Road, mostly family neighborhood. What else is there? There's a library. This is an area where families and people walk to the library. This area where there are churches, which I guess library and churches is technically considered commercial, but that's part of the fabric of a residential area. Parents are walking their children to the library, across Airport Road, across Orange Blossom all the time. So on both sides of Airport, both sides of Orange Blossom here, primarily probably 90 percent are residential communities. Mostly single-family homes and low-rise condominiums or low-rise apartment complexes, and I'll talk more about that as we go further. But it's -- and we met with -- and, actually, just a little background. Over the last few months, we have met with the developer. We've met with Trinity Scott and the Transportation group. We've met with Mr. Bosi and his staff. We met with Cormac Giblin and his staff, and the staff has been phenomenal in giving us information and helping us. But when we met with Mr. Bosi, he did say, and he did say it again today, that this is not considered an urban activity center, this corner. This is a residential area. It's not like Founders Square. It's not like Vanderbilt and Airport. It's not like Pine Ridge and Airport. It's not like Pine Ridge and Goodlette where there are more commercial properties. Now, these areas may have zoning of commercial, but the existing area is residential with a library, some vacant lands, a nursery, a church, and that's the nature of this area. Not a commercial and industrial area, even though that does exist to the south, but this corner does not. So overall, what's our viewpoint of residents? I'm kind of starting with the summary. We believe that the Planning Commission and the Commissioners can find a win -win situation, something that can work on this parcel that is appropriate. And what the residents want and what we've heard from everyone, they want responsible growth in our town, in our area, because this is our neighborhood. I've lived here for 21 years. You can see people here; this is our neighborhood. We want projects that are consistent and compatible with the neighborhood in both Page 30 of 100 Packet Pg. 34 April 6, 2023 5.A.a character, height, and density, and I'll get into more specifics on that. They're asking the Planning Commission and the Commissioners to follow the Growth Management Plan that's in place. And I realize this is an amendment, and I realize the Commissioners can -- you can approve this, the Commissioners can approve it, but we believe there's a balance. And the existing Growth Management Plan is a good starting point thoughtful process for how we should grow in Collier County. The county commissioners, the Planning Commission, and the residents, we realize we need more affordable housing. And just as an example, the residents --and we've talked about this -- we would be fine with 100 percent affordable housing on this parcel if it was lower density; lower height, lower density. We have no problem with affordable housing. We agree that it's needed in Collier County. We just want it to be more compatible with what's in the area. I understand the developer wants a profitable, successful project, and just -- you may know or may not know, it's my understanding the developer's from South Carolina. At the neighborhood information meeting, they told us they have one employee living in Collier County. That may have changed, but that was in September. One employee. We believe there is an option of a lower -density, lower -height project that's more appropriate with this residential neighborhood can work on this parcel. Maybe not with this developer, but there are others that could make something work here. There's a middle ground. We are not saying don't build anything. We just want it to be compatible with what we have here. We don't believe what they presented is compatible. And at the top -- the first bullet, they were talking about 55 -- it's a 60-foot-high building. What they didn't say is that the next tallest building, the Carlisle, is only 42 feet. This is 43 percent higher than what the Carlisle is. And the next building after the Carlisle is even lower than that. So at 43 percent higher, even though it's just one story, that is a dramatic increase in height. The density is 130 percent higher density than what they're eligible for. It is our understanding, when we met with Mr. Bosi, that with a density bonus, they were eligible, under the Growth Management Plan, the existing Growth Management Plan. And I know there's been talk in the last week or so, but the one that's been in play, it's our understanding, is 10 units per acre. But I'll talk about that -- and we can talk about that in a second. But this is much higher density, even with the density bonus, is what they're asking for. And Mr. Yovanovich did mention this, but we do believe this is a tipping -point project in this area that's going to set a precedent that's going to change what this -- this is a low -density residential area. It's going to change into an overbuilt congested area, overcrowded schools. And just so you know, all the schools in this district are at capacity right now: Barron Collier, Pine Ridge, Pelican Marsh Elementary, Osceola Elementary. They are at capacity already. The safety concerns of pedestrians and people traveling along Airport Road, we have a huge concern. It's a high -accident area. My wife was almost in an accident two days ago along this stretch. We are concerned of whatever project goes in here, what's going to happen to this whole intersection. And we believe it will blow it up. And right next to this, there are four vacant parcels at this intersection where we believe developers, whatever is approved for the applicant, will use to get additional approvals. And there are four as you've seen in the -- if I go forward here -- so our big -- two concerns. One is this is -- we don't think this is appropriate as residents, but it is going to set a precedent what's approved here, and it is going to add congestion and traffic and change the nature of what is built along this stretch. And if you -- if I go to the next page here. So this is the site plan of what's there now. You have the Carlisle. You have the vacant property where they're planning to build The Haven project. Just north of that you have a vacant parcel where the Lutgert medical building is being proposed. It's something you'll be hearing down the road this year. Whatever goes in on this Haven property, that next developer will use as a precedent. The Italian -American center, we know that they've been receiving offers from developers; that will be Page 31 of 100 Packet Pg. 35 April 6, 2023 5.A.a developed. Right across the street, across Airport Road, there's a 10-acre nursery. It's been therefor years and years. That will, at some point in the near future, probably be developed. So whatever goes in here -- so we're going to have growth in this area. And, again, as residents, we're not saying we should not have growth. We're just saying, let's find a balance, because all of these parcels are going to be built on, and let's protect this beautiful section -- residential section of Naples. As I mentioned, we met with the county staff, and I already talked -- my first point, Mr. Bosi -- this is not an urban activity center. It's a residential area. It's already a high -density, high -intensity area. The developer told us at the meeting we had with them, they're expecting The Haven to add 5- to 700 cars, all of them turning right onto Airport Road. Half of those cars are going to want to go north, half are going to go south. So they're all going to be doing U-turns just south of their exit. This little section is a high -accident area already. Schools -- we have three schools near by here. We have Barron -- four -- five schools near by: Barron, Osceola, First Baptist Academy, The Village School. This is a dangerous area already. This project is going to be throwing 5- to 700 cars in and out, right turn only, rushing over to do a U-turn coming north, and we think it's going to be a disaster at this size, and it should be smaller. The Lutgert medical building right next door, they're proposing -- and, again, it hasn't been approved, but they're proposing another 3- -- or they're suggesting another 3- to 500 cars daily on that project, because they just had their information meeting. Also, right turn only and then U-turns on Airport if you want to go north. So if you look at this, all these cars dropping to the -- taking rights onto Airport, trying to turn right in front of Marbella Isles, right in front of Walden Oaks, that are -- residents are represented from those communities here -- Windward Isle, it is going to be a disaster. So, again, we believe something smaller is appropriate for this parcel so it doesn't blow up this area and just create havoc. So you've already seen this. And the reason I put this up here, this is the site plan for The Haven. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'd like to understand what -- the impact that you were trying to make us aware of. So you were concerned about people turning right or -- MR. RENNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Explain to me exactly what your concern is on that turning situation. MR. RENNER: So if you look at -- this project's going to have right turn only onto Airport Road. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Show me where it is that you're talking about. Over at the entrance? So that's going to be right turn only where the island is? And below as well? Both of those are going to be right turn only, okay. MR. RENNER: It's going to be right turn only, and what goes in above them is also going to be right turn only. We're going to say that it is going to create havoc at that area. And, again -- and this is directly across from family residential areas. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So on Orange Blossom, you're saying people are also turning only right? No, no, no, I'm talking -- you were saying it was going to mix with the residents who are already there, I thought, was your point. MR. RENNER: The point was it's going to create a difficult situation if -- that many cars on this project, and what's coming next on the Lutgert medical center, it's going to create havoc along Airport Road to have an additional 5- to 700 cars on one project, 3- to 500 on the next, and -- because half these people are going to want to go north. They're going to turn right, but they're going to be heading north, so they're going to be doing U-turns and coming north, is the Page 32 of 100 Packet Pg. 36 April 6, 2023 5.A.a point. And my other point, just the traffic -- and we met with Trinity Scott with the Transportation group. Actually, everyone with the staff has been excellent, by the way. The Transportation group made it very clear to us -- this is new to me -- but their only criteria for recommending this is, is there capacity? Capacity. I didn't hear them say anything about this is going to create more congestion. All they talked about was capacity. And do we have capacity, sure. But there's a balance here between capacity and what is reasonable for a 90 percent residential area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman Schmitt. And before you go ahead, sir, commissioners may interrupt speakers at any time. When they do, and if the answer takes more than just a yes or a no, the speakers will be credited with additional time. It doesn't apply in your case because you've got way more than you need. But when that happens, we won't hold you to the amount of time that you've been given. Go ahead, Vice Chairman. MR. RENNER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Renner, you --I'm just trying to understand from the standpoint, you prefaced most of your statements with "we believe," "we assume," or "it's our concerns," but you have done no independent studies. You stated a lot of what are perceived to be facts on the record, but these are just your assumptions and assertions. Have you done -- have you hired anybody to provide any professional assessment of the statements you made in regards to the traffic impacts, the impacts on capacity? Because that's the only criteria we use is capacity. Capacity means traffic. And the capacity means how many -- how many vehicles are going to be on the road at a given time. It also has a presumption of -- what was the term you used? I just -- congestion. Thank you. But -- so just to clarify, are you a professional engineer, professional traffic -- or anybody on your staff provided you this information, or are these just assumptions that you all sort of feel and internalized and want to state on the record? Because I want to understand. And I'm going to look to the applicant to counter this, because these are facts that you're presenting to us to consider. But I want to know whether these are just beliefs or just facts that you've hired a professional traffic engineer or somebody else who has done this and provided you the information. MR. RENNER: Thank you. No, we have not. I'm not a traffic engineer. We have not hired -- we have not hired or paid for a separate traffic study. We don't have the budget for that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. RENNER: But I guess the point -- my point would be, this project's adding 5- to 700 cars. It's going to be tremendous additional congestion and intensity on that area. That's the point. And no one's disputing the 500 to 700 cars. That's what was presented to us by the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I understand. At least now you quantified and qualified your opinions, and I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. RENNER: So when we met with Mr. Bosi and the Zoning team, as you've already heard today, this 10-acre parcel that they're probably primarily going to be building on is currently zoned agricultural, which -- so the applicant has a right -- a right for one unit per five acres, which you've already heard and discussed that today. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just like --because you're moving onto a different point, so I want to go back to your point about the cars. So your point about 500 to 700 cars, what is your point? I mean, obviously, there's going to be a parking lot filled with cars, and the issue is is when are they moving and, you know, what's the impact. So what is your understanding of -- you know, you're -- MR. RENNER: The point is is that this -- oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Page 33 of 100 Packet Pg. 37 April 6, 2023 5.A.a COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, no. Because it's not like 500 or 700 cars are going to be turning right all at the same time, you know, obviously. So, like, what is it -- because you throw that number out, what does that mean to you? Because obviously it is important how many cars are going to be there, but what are -- what do you think is going to be happening with those 500 to 700 cars that we should factor in that, you know, bolsters the concerns that you have? MR. RENNER: We would believe that most of the residents of this apartment complex will be full-time. I'm sure there will be part-time people as well. But this is going to be a lot of people coming and going. The applicant told us it's 5- to 700 cars. It's going to add tremendous traffic and congestion to what's already there, what's already happening at already a very busy area. So that's -- our point is is this is going to add. So whatever is approved here, if it's larger, higher density, it's going to have a larger impact on the roads here. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So 500 to 700 cars is going to have a much more -- a much greater impact than 300 to 500 cars? MR. RENNER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, yeah, okay. I will say that I would have staff and the applicant ready to answer, you know, what is the concern about people who have to go right but then actually needed to go left? Because, obviously, you know, I would like to know what we think people are going to be doing, you know, to make that change in direction and how that impacts, you know, the traffic. MR. RENNER: I did want to just go back again to this slide, because this wasn't discussed at all at how this project differs dramatically in height. The residents are fine with a project going in here that's consistent and compatible in height with what else is already there, and that would be 42 feet at the Carlisle right next door, and that's a dramatic departure from what's in the adjoining properties there. So we talked about -- the commissioners -- if the Planning Commission commissioners agree to a zoning change, the owner's eligible for four units per acre per the Growth Management Plan. And so this was just a note that was in the public record from Mr. Klopf saying the subject property is located in urban residential subdistrict and urban residential designation. This limits the base available density to a maximum of four units per acre. The applicant has proposed an approximate 300 units over the entire 15 acres which equates out to approximately 20 units per acre, which it's actually 23, as you've heard. This would require a density bonus of approximately 16 units per acre. The applicant must provide justification in the form of a needs analysis. And in this email it says that that should contain an aspect of affordable housing at 20 percent of units at 80 percent AMI. The applicant's proposing 10 percent at 80 percent, and then 10 percent at 120 percent AMI. Sothis is suggesting that 30 percent is the number. They're suggesting 20 percent on the affordable component. And we have no problem with the affordable component, by the way, as I've already mentioned. Another thing that hasn't been brought up -- and we met with the developer, and this is what they shared with us, that this Haven complex is going to be a luxury apartment complex. They're going to be charging $4,200 for a carriage unit, $4,100 for a three -bedroom, $3,200 for a two -bedroom, and $2,200 for a one -bedroom. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What is a carriage unit? MR. RENNER: The carriage unit, it's my understanding, is that a low-rise? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's an apartment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can't -- we can't have people talking from the audience. If you don't know, just say you don't know. MR. RENNER: Carriage unit, it's my understanding, there's the 60-foot building, and along Airport Road it's my understanding they're suggesting some two-story buildings along -- let me go back to this. This is my understanding and they -- Page 34 of 100 Packet Pg. 38 April 6, 2023 5.A.a CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hang on. Just pause for a moment, sir. Mr. Bosi, is that a term of art? And if so, what does it mean? MR. BOSI: I do not know. I wasn't at the neighborhood information meeting. We don't have a carriage unit within our Land Development -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. MR. RENNER: So if you look at this page, this is my understanding from when we met with the developer -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That is a typical term in Naples, carriage, and what's the -- I can't think of the other term. But it's a typical real estate term to identify a unit. Typically it will be a -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: A villa, villa? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's like a villa. That's what it is. I mean -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. RENNER: And on this page here, this is my understanding, is just these six buildings along Airport Road are going to be two-story buildings, and the other two larger buildings here are going to be the 60-foot-high buildings. The other point we want to make as residents, right now just south of this parcel, well, there's four other more affordable apartment complexes already existing: Bear Creek; the Oasis, which is just south of Bear Creek; the 1 OX apartments just south of that; Gulf Shore apartments right next to Barron Collier on Pine Ridge Road. And there is availability there. The l OX -- if you drive by, the 1 OX apartments have a big sign right in front, leasing available. All of these apartments are older apartments that have been approved in the past, and, as Mr. Bosi said, the Bear Creek, I believe, is 14 units per acre, the Oasis is 12 units per acre. Something more like that, the residents feel, is accessible and more compatible, not 23 units per acre, almost doubling the density of what this area has -- the maximum density. You know, most of these surrounding areas are single-family homes. These are the highest density, and they're at 12 and 14 units per acre. But this area which we are fine as residents with more apartments, more affordable apartments right in this area, right on this parcel. We just want to make the point that there are other -- many other apartments available in this part of town. There are a lot of condominiums that are rented out that would be less expensive condominiums in some of the older neighborhoods there that rent at a lower rate than a new luxury apartment complex. So my point here is, it's not crucial to have this size project on this lot. There are other options, a lot of other options in this area that would be less expensive than what they're offering. So the next, I just want to get -- and we've talked a little bit about the Tract A and Tract B. The residents -- the Carlisle has been there for 20-some-plus years. It's a different owner. They're working together, I guess, because of the entrance, but we strongly believe that the Planning Commission and the county commissioners should consider the density strictly on this Tract B. This is what's new. This is what they are proposing, and that density is 23.05 acres -- 23.05 units per acre. And then this is, again, from the public record. You can see where the Carlisle is. This is the existing Carlisle, and this is the parcel that the applicant is planning to purchase to put The Haven project in. And you've seen this chart prepared by Hole Montes already. So we're asking the commissioners -- the Planning Commission, excuse me, to make this decision based on the density of Tract B. It just --that is what's new here. That's what they're adding. And I did talk to someone during the break who has family in the Carlisle, and they made a point that only 25 percent, I believe, units in the Carlisle are assisted living. Most of that is independent living, if you know anyone there. Like, three -fourths independent living. Only a quarter's assisted living. But that aside, we believe that you should consider the Tract B and the density there. And then -- I mean, if you want to -- if you want to approve that, but it's -- this is not adding 12 units per Page 35 of 100 Packet Pg. 39 April 6, 2023 5.A.a acre. This is adding 23 units per acre. That's the density impact of this area, and that's clearly stated here. And they say that as well, the Tract B is 23. So the applicant's not disputing that. That is 23 units per acre on the Tract B. Carlisle's been there 20-plus years. And this is just from one of -- from Laura DeJohn who works with Mr. Bosi. The email we got two weeks ago, we were just trying to get, you know, what's the current applicant's proposal? Again, actual height, 60 feet, and this came from Laura on Mike Bosi's -- Mr. Bosi's staff. And at the very bottom, net density on Tract B, 336 units on 14.57 acres, 23 dwelling units per acre. One of the other speakers is going to get into more detail on the density bonus. But we met with Mr. Bosi, and this is what we heard, and I heard something different this morning. But based on the Land Development Code 2.06, which is my understanding was developed for -- to provide affordable housing density bonuses to have bigger units for developers who are going to have an affordable component, that the maximum density, even with an affordable component, based on the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, was 10 units per acre. That's what we heard. And maybe -- and that's -- we had that in our notes, and maybe that has changed, but that's what we heard. The Growth Management Plan -- so we -- our position is this should be no more than 10 units per acre. That's 150 units, and that's still a sizable property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would -- I think it's really important for everyone to understand the point, you know, that you just raised. And so maybe --you know, if you don't mind -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- if we could have Mr. Bosi confirm. So right now do I understand correctly that the applicant has proposed more affordable housing than would be required to meet this density bonus of 10 units per acre? MR. BOSI: As I've stated earlier, the maximum density allowed by the LDC and the GMP on this property currently with four units per acre as a base and an eligible of 12 units per acre with an affordable housing that's 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But my question is, are they proposing more affordable housing in their current proposal than they would have needed to have to get this density bonus under the -- just under the code? MR. BOSI: No. They are -- they're not proposing to be in compliance with the code. They're proposing a GMP amendment that is requesting a net density of 23 units an acre. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Doesn't the code require 100 percent affordable housing -- MR. BOSI: No, the code does not require. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- under the LDC; no? MR. BOSI: It does not. An arrangement. It depends on the income levels that you are providing for. The percentage that's going to be allocated to those income levels dictate the density bonuses. To get to a full density bonus, it's not 100 percent, but you have to dip to more of your low and very low income to get that full 12 units an acre. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So it really isn't -- my question is not really easy to answer, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We won't charge you -- charge this time against you, sir. MR. RENNER. Oh, sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Although you've got lots of -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm up here keeping track. No, just kidding. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I am. Mr. Bosi, could you give us some history in the county with respect to the policy, the Page 36 of 100 Packet Pg. 40 April 6, 2023 5.A.a tactic, if you will, and the accessibility and the frequency, the history of combining adjacent lots in order to reduce density? What can you say about how that happens or how that has happened historically in this county? MR. BOSI: I really don't have any real anecdotal information to provide to you other than that's how our code dictates that you evaluate the density of a mixed -use project, that the residential and the nonresidential acreage is utilized to provide for the overall gross density of a project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But what I'm confused about is the word "tract." If we were talking about a lot, I would understand that the entire lot would be subject to the calculation. But when we talk about different tracts, is that just an informal expression and geographical expression? MR. BOSI: It's a geographical expression of how you subdivide a PUD. A PUD is divided within the development tracts, and a -- the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan informs us to say, when you have a PUD that's mixed use, you combine all the tracts that are in there regarding what the use is, whether it be residential or whether it be commercial, institutional, or whatever the proposal would be, to calculate the full gross density. So that's what our -- that's how our code instructs us to arrive upon what the total density of a mixed -use project is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so what you're saying, then, it is appropriate for the applicant to combine A and B. And I would go further to say that if we go one to four, 25 percent -- 25 percent occupancy of an assisted or an independent living facility is equal to 100 percent of an apartment, the arithmetic seems to come out to around 16 dwelling units per acre. MR. BOSI: Yeah, that's what the math comes out to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Don't make me use this, please. Okay. So that's what I wanted to know. Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's regardless of who owns the land, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I mean, because we have two separate ownerships here. MR. BOSI: Correct. It's the same PUD, and that's why we're calculating gross and net, for your benefit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Renner, you're completed with your comments? Because I have a couple of questions. MR. RENNER: No. I'm almost done, though. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll wait till you're done, because I want to follow up with a couple of statements you made just for clarity. But I'll wait till you're done. MR. RENNER: All right. Thank you. So the residents, as I'm sure you're aware, we strongly believe that this -- the Carlisle has been there for 20 years, and even though maybe there's a technicality that you can use those acres in this amendment that they're presenting, when deciding what is appropriate density for a project, it just does not make sense to the residents. And we've talked a lot about this. And even though it's a -- even the applicant has been using both numbers. So we -- the residents of the Orange Blossom/Airport Road Alliance representing people from these 14 communities are asking you to consider this based on what this new development truly is, 336 units on 14.57 acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Am I interrupting you, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I just --if he's completed, I was going to -- MR. RENNER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I did want to address the point he just made, though. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess I would just say that, you know, a lot of people Page 37 of 100 Packet Pg. 41 April 6, 2023 5.A.a have no idea my background. I wasn't wearing an orange shirt, but that's basically the position that I have played over the years -- I'm out in Ave Maria -- with different things. And so I understand a lot more now than I did when I was sitting, you know, as a member of the audience and, you know, leading the charge, so to speak. And all I'll say is that you have to, you know, understand what doesn't make sense for -- you know, for a landowner is to not be able to use their land with the highest and best use that's going to -- you know, under the law, under what's allowed under the law and under the -- what we have -- you know, the County Commission and then we as planning commissioners taking their lead what we, you know, think is appropriate development in the county, and treating all landowners, you know, with that respect that they don't get -- based on how neighbors perceive what's going to happen, that that is important to understand how neighbors perceive what -- you know, what's being proposed, but it doesn't control things. And what controls things is the guidelines that we are -- you know, that both of code as well as the direction. In this case the direction is is that we very much want and we do give very important bonuses for the workforce housing. And that's just -- you know, it -- you already addressed that you thought there could be a win -win that, you know, comes down a little bit in the density, and I'm just telling you that what I'm hearing so far is that while you're making points that make a lot of sense from your perspective, that we have to factor in, you know -- you know, fairness to the landowner as well as, you know, what the policy goals are for the -- you know, for the county regarding the lower -income housing. MR. RENNER: I appreciate that. And I just -- I put the Tract A/Tract B back up. The applicant does not own or is not planning on owning or buying Tract A. That is not going to be -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I know, but the restriction that ends up being imposed on that whole Tract A and B combined, that restriction, then, binds everybody, all owners, you know. So, then, everyone's hands are --all the owners' hands are tied to what's approved. MR. RENNER: It seems like accounting -- using accounting numbers to try to reach a number to the residents, we can tell you that, because -- and they've even said this is 23 units per acre that they're planning on building here, and -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm the one who drew that out to make sure that we knew exactly what was being proposed. So I'm the one who highlighted that very fact. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's in the report as well. MR. RENNER: Yeah. Well, thank you, I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no, but I'm the one that focused on it to make sure I understood that it was -- Tract B alone was going to the 23 density. So I'm totally aware and understand that's a factor, you know, looking at it, what is this new -- the new aspect is 23 density, and that -- that certainly, you know, weighs on our decision. MR. RENNER: All right. Well, thank you. Just a couple more slides, and I'll be done here. So as I'm sure you're aware, everyone we've talked to, just being involved with this the last six months, since the neighborhood information meeting, along Orange -- everyone, all residents -- all residents all throughout Collier County, there's major issues affecting us because of the tremendous growth in popularity of Collier County. But the one I hear more than anything is people believe we need to have respons -- we know we're growing. We can't stop the growth. People are coming. And there's -- as even the applicant mentioned, they're involved with other projects. There's going to be a lot of new projects coming around Collier County. But all the residents I've spoken with, everyone that's come to our meetings even outside this area, the number -one concern they're hearing in Collier County or they're stating is controlling the overbuilding, overcrowding, congestion, and traffic, the density, controlling that. Everyone wants to protect our beautiful neighborhoods. That's the reason we're in Naples in the first place, and that's why we're here today, to protect this primarily 90 percent residential neighborhood. Page 38 of 100 Packet Pg. 42 April 6, 2023 5.A.a We all agree we need affordable housing, more affordable housing, and we're not disagreeing with that. And we've been respectful to the county staff, to the developer, to try to work out something that's reasonable for everyone. And we believe there's a balanced approach to this. And this is just an example. This is the --this is another project that's going to becoming to you down the road, I believe; that's my understanding. The proposed Ascend Naples apartment complex, which is being proposed to be built off of Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's 208 units on 17.5 acres. It would be 11.9 units per acre including 62 attainable units. Something like this is compatible and appropriate for this area along Airport Road and Orange Blossom. And there is a developer that can make something like this work. I'm not sure if the applicant can, but someone more appropriate. There is something that can be done that's consistent, that's appropriate. It's still going to add a lot of congestion and traffic -- we understand that. It's coming -- but also can help with the affordable. So just how much? So all we're asking, that this should be smaller in density, smaller in height. We feel it's very reasonable, and we've tried to speak to all the parties involved. And there is something like this that can be approved. And we're asking the Planning Commission to reject the applicant's proposal as presented for that 60-foot-high 336-unit building. And that's the -- I've completed my prepared comments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me follow up, because this is a perfect segue into where I wanted to go with this. You stated on the record it's -- what I believe was your statement, you -all would agree and you would consent to 100 percent affordable housing. MR. RENNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you have anybody on your staff or anybody in the community or anybody that you talked to -- because the way -- a little bit of background from an understanding of affordable housing, a developer comes in based on the financial feasibility. The feasibility of building the development because -- and you cited the rents. The rents are high, but you understand that the renters who rent at the market rate are technically subsidizing the affordable housing units, because all the units are essentially the same. But the -- from the standpoint of the renters who qualify for the affordable housing units, they're not going to be substandard units. My understanding -- And I asked the petitioner this specifically on the phone: Are there going to be two different type interiors or whatever? They're all going to be the same. They're just going to rent to -- those who qualify, the units -- and, I mean, from a standpoint of financially feasible, the renters are subsidizing the payoff what -- really, what they would cost on those units. But do you have anybody that has done an analysis on the staff? Because you stated here, again, they could build this type of facility, but I'm -- in order to build this type of facility, understand the cost of construction, the cost of land, and typically a builder comes in. We've been through this up here on the dais before looking at how many units does it take to construct a facility or a development in order to provide the number of affordable housing units? And if it goes below a certain point, the job -- the construction costs and everything associated, it becomes not economically feasible; therefore, the project just can't be built. So I just want to know, you made statements on the record. Do you have anybody that has done any -- that type of analysis? Because, again, you point out this facility could be built. Certainly, it could be built, but at what cost? And what would the rents have to be in order to subsidize the affordable housing? That -- but you -- have you -- do you have anybody in the development field that has done that kind of an analysis? MR. RENNER: No. Again, I am a resident. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. RENNER: I don't have a staff. And the purpose of this is, this is something that the -- something like this, the point is, the residents would be okay with that. And my point about 100 percent affordable housing is to make the point, we want to make sure the Planning Page 39 of 100 Packet Pg. 43 April 6, 2023 5.A.a Commission knows that the residents are not against affordable housing. We're not NIMBYs. We're not saying we don't want anything there, but there is a balance there. This is something that's being proposed off Vanderbilt Beach Road, so this developer figured out a way to do it on that piece of property, but we don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MR. RENNER: But the applicant doesn't have to buy this piece of property. It's my understanding they haven't purchased it yet. It's contingent. Maybe the next applicant, next developer, can figure out a way of doing it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We don't get into deciding zoning by the rents. Now, the rents are controlled. If it's affordable housing, then there's some stipulation. But I'm just going back to what the petitioner stated on the record. If they went below a certain number of units -- and I'll ask Mr. Yovanovich if he would qualify that again -- that it basically becomes economically infeasible to develop this project. And I clearly respect your -- and I appreciate your views and those things that you stated, but the reality is, you just don't go in there and say, I want to build this type of facility you just pointed out, or your 100 percent affordable housing, because there's a cost. Unless somebody subsidizes the 100 percent affordable housing, somebody would have to subsidize it, because -- just the cost of land alone in that area probably far exceeds what they would be able to -- they wouldn't even be able to build such a facility and make it affordable. So this is -- this is building, yes, luxury apartments in order to provide an affordable housing option. I mean, that's technically what they're proposing. But you've not done that analysis, but thank you very much. MR. RENNER: No, I have not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. RENNER: But all we're asking is something smaller, lower -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. MR. RENNER: I mean, 43 percent higher than the next highest building, and whatever's approved here today, and if the commissioners agree with that, is going to set a precedent for these other parcels. So we believe -- the residents believe that needs to be taken into consideration also because -- and we know that the Lutgert medical building proposal -- right now there's already one on the way to you. But thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would just ask, Mr. Yovanovich, in your rebuttal --not now, but in your rebuttal if you would address, again, for the record. I heard you state it at the beginning, but just to address the feasibility and the breakeven point here. Because we've been through this before in great detail, and it's just a matter of economics and the feasibility. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further to that, if I may, we have been through this many, many times, and if this were to be 100 percent affordable or workforce housing, the trade-off would have to be more density in order to make it work financially, which means more height and more traffic. MR. RENNER: My point on that, again -- and I appreciate that -- was just we're not against affordable housing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we accept that, and we appreciate that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, two quick questions of Mr. Bosi. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. We currently have, throughout even this area of Naples, many programs that are 16 units per acre within the general area, correct? Some of those other -- MR. BOSI: Within the immediate area, the highest residential density is 14 units an acre -- Page 40 of 100 Packet Pg. 44 April 6, 2023 5.A.a COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- at Bear Creek. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: At Bear Creek right below it. Okay. So this one coming in at 16, it's not drastically different -- MR. BOSI: Well, what they're proposing is 23. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. And 16 on 27. Do you know -- anywhere within Collier, do we have anything at the proposed 23 dwelling units per acre currently? MR. BOSI: And the applicant provided five individual slides of recently approved development at -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Close to that. MR. BOSI: -- 23 units per acre, 20 units an acre. I mean, the highest residential density that we currently allow is 92 units an acre. So we have density within -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: High-rise. MR. BOSI: -- the county. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. So my point is that while this may be, quote, a high number, it is not out of the normal that we have here within Collier County, the 23 units? MR. BOSI: There have been instances where locations have had higher density than what's being requested. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sir, you want to finish it up, then? MR. RENNER: Yeah. And, yeah, thank you for the time. And I guess my concluding points, again, this is a residential area. This is not an urban activity center. I don't know where those other projects were built that the applicant mentioned at higher densities or what you're talking about here, but this area is not an urban activity center. This is not -- even though there are some commercial -- I guess the library's considered commercial. Maybe the church is considered commercial. Maybe that nursery that's been there for 40 years is considered commercial. This is not a high -activity commercial area, so that should be taken into consideration. And my last point is, I just hope the people -- we live and we raise our kids in this neighborhood and that the -- everyone I've talked to along this stretch in these 14 communities is against what's being proposed. I hope what the residents of this area want -- and we've been trying to be reasonable in what we're asking for for our neighborhood -- we live every day with our family and we raise our kids -- that the Planning Commission will take this into consideration, you know, our voices today. But thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea, do you have something for this witness? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just wanted to thank you. That's one of the best presentations I've had presented -- seen presented here in terms of understanding your positions; very clear, very professional. And I would just ask that additional speakers, if you're going to be redundant, he's made your point for you, to me anyways. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Renner. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say it again, please, no applause, no, you know, extraneous comments or comments of any sort. We just can't run this operation that way, please. I ask for your understanding on that. Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Diane Flagg. She's been Page 41 of 100 Packet Pg. 45 April 6, 2023 5.A.a ceded up to 35 minutes. My question for you, sir, is would you like for Mr. Smith to go first since he has an appointment coming up? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I thought you'd ceded your time, sir. You didn't? MR. SMITH: No. I have additional comments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to go -- that's fine with me. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Lawrence Smith is our next speaker, and then we will go to Diane Flagg. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Lawrence Smith. I am the president of Bridgewater Bay Property Owners Association representing over a thousand residents in the -- on the Orange Blossom Road. I wanted to add to Mr. Renner's presentation. I have been -- 44 years I've been a developer in the state of Massachusetts. I understand the ITE Trip Generation Manual extremely well, and I'd like to point out, I trust they're using the l lth edition. It was published in 2021, and it's based on data that predates COVID. Everyone in this community knows post COVID how that has impacted the traffic. More residents are staying year-round; more traffic is occurring in local communities all around America. The Trip Generation Manual, it lags. It's a tool that traffic engineers use, but it lags. And it will be rewritten. It will be rewritten with new criteria. They use capacity. We require -- in Massachusetts we require traffic analysis that looks at level of service. I guarantee you Orange Blossom Road and Airport Road would be, like, a Level of Service F for fail. They look at the peak hour and the morning hour. It looks well beyond capacity. It looks at safety. So I would ask that you absolutely require a detailed in -season trip generation study. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You mention COVID, right? MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. I guess I'm -- you know, in my mind, COVID means more people are working from home and doing a lot more and not going out, you know, and then the aftermath of that is there is more people working from home as a result of what -- you know, the idea that it can work for -- you know, for more people than prior, it was thought of as absurd. You know, you wouldn't have a Zoom conference. You would go to a meeting. I'm just trying to figure out what is it that you --why would you mention COVID? What do you think means that -- would make more traffic because of -- in the aftermath of COVID? You brought it up. I was just trying to make sense of it. MR. SMITH: They're finding that the peak hour is getting longer and longer and longer, that people are going out to the community, to the stores because they're working from home. So the peak hour and the traffic problems are broadening. Your peak hour -- in Massachusetts they require them to look at a three-hour time segment because of that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I mean, it seems to me that that would be -- you know, everyone would be happy that you now -- instead of having a concentrated, you know, heavy, ridiculous traffic, you now have, you know, that same amount of trips, but it's over a broader time period. MR. SMITH: They're showing more trips, so the trip generation's increasing over a longer period of time. You might get a slightly lower peak at those peak -hour times, but the, you know, broadening of the -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Because they would be going to lunch at their workplace instead of going to lunch at their apartment? MR. SMITH: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Out to lunch from their apartment instead of from their Page 42 of 100 Packet Pg. 46 April 6, 2023 5.A.a workplace? MR. SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further to your comment, Commissioner, I look at the 2022 Attachment F to the AUIR. We've got two segments of Airport Road that are implicated here, Segment 2.2 and 3.0. And, interestingly, in both cases, the traffic on those segments have gone down. In the first case it's gone down minus 3.24 percent; in the second case, minus 2.29 percent. Now, I can't say categorically that that's a result of the pandemic, but by way of anecdote, in other cases, it seems to have been, and there's been testimony in other cases that the pandemic does weigh into that. But for these -- the two segments of that important road, traffic has actually gone down 3.24 percent and 2.29 percent respectively. Go ahead, sir. MR. SMITH: Also on traffic, the -- all the right turning onto Airport Road is going to create what's called a weaving problem. They need to get over to the left lane almost immediately to make that U-turn. It's going to be a very dangerous movement to something that does not occur right now. So that's also very important to consider, safety. Another point I'd like to make -- I was involved with a mixed -use development in Massachusetts --let me backup. Massachusetts governor many years ago required 10 percent of the housing stock to be -- on any new development to be placed into affordable housing, in -distinguished mix. So in other words, what that means is if you have a housing stock of 15,000 new building permits a year, 1,500 of them have to be affordable housing. So that was a mandate that was occurred [sic]. And it required a minimum of 25 percent, and they would give bonuses above 25 percent for a project, like I was involved with, with 120 units, 48 units were provided, 40 percent affordable housing. We were certainly able to pencil our numbers even at that level because of the rents in the town of Lincoln, Massachusetts. Okay. Also on the affordable housing, it's critically important that that affordable housing really be in -distinguishable. It should be all the way across the mix, three -bedroom units, two -bedroom units, one -bedroom units. That's absolutely critical. This area needs affordable housing; we all know that. At Bridgewater Bay, we weren't able to hire one of our assistant property managers because she was coming over from the East Coast and could not find affordable housing less than 40 minutes away for her and her family. So, anyway, I really request that this board, you know, deny the applicant, at least bring them back down to the by -right. Anything that they're asking for is not by right. It's by privilege. So I would ask this board to deny their application for the additional units. And even at that, trust me, they will pencil their numbers. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Flagg -- and I'm going to give you your choice here. We have a -- we have a break coming up at noon. I don't want to -- MS. FLAGG: I'll be done by then. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You will? MS. FLAGG: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Has everyone been sworn? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question. Ms. Flagg, you've been sworn, I think. MS. FLAGG: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll check on that as we go. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. FLAGG: It's still good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Planning Page 43 of 100 Packet Pg. 47 April 6, 2023 5.A.a Commissioners. Diane Flagg, for the record. This presentation is obviously about The Haven at North Naples. You can go ahead and put it on there. As you know, a Growth Management Plan amendment means that the developer has made the decision not to follow the Growth Management Plan that is the Commissioners' Growth Management Plan but to create their own Growth Management Plan. As you know, MPUD ordinance means that they have elected not to follow the Land Development Code regulations of the county commissioners but to write their own regulations. In most cases, this project did comply with the regulations of the Land Development Code. County staff indicated that the reason that they were going to recommend this was because of the affordable housing component. So what we found very interesting is that one of the regulations that they chose to exempt themselves from is the affordable housing regulation. Thousands of other regulations apply, but they exempted themselves from the affordable housing regulation. And it would seem to me that that should be a decision by the county commissioners. The Haven exempted itself from an 11-page regulation, which is 2.06, and instead has now substituted what we learned today, two paragraphs, Paragraph A and Paragraph C. So this is your 11-page regulation by the county commissioners that if you're going to provide affordable housing, this is how you do it, and, instead, they've substituted two paragraphs. One of the things that they've exempted is number of bedrooms. At a recent presentation by the Community Foundation, they indicated the most important need for our community in affordable housing is families. Families, multiple bedrooms. Families need affordable housing, because when a property manager comes to town, they're not coming typically as a single individual. They're coming with children and a husband or a wife. So number of bedrooms, which is in the 11-page regulation, is required to be stated because they need to know, are we meeting the need. You cannot meet the need for affordable housing with studios and one -bedrooms. The Haven also excluded a process for annual income verification certification; conditions under which the units will be sold, although we heard today they're not selling; a lien instrument with specificity to be recorded with the Clerk of Courts; the ratio of number of bedrooms per affordable housing unit equal to the ratio of number of bedrooms per residential unit; an agreement that constitutes the covenants, restrictions, and conditions that run with the property. So what happens if The Haven, an out-of-town developer, sells the property? I can guarantee you these two paragraphs don't cover any of that, because there's no separate agreement. Remember, if it's not written in the PUD, this (indicating), it doesn't apply. None of this applies. Only these two little paragraphs apply. It also doesn't allow for random inspections, doesn't allow a process for violations. So if they decide to rent these units at full market rate, there's no process in these two little paragraphs. There's no process for criminal enforcement, no process for civil enforcement. All of that is covered in the commissioners' regulations. Next page. The Haven proposes to build 336 multifamily units on the 14.57 acres, and that's Tract B which, as you've heard multiple times, 23 units per acre. The Carlisle already exists on Tract A. County staff advised, what are they entitled to, they are entitled by zoning one unit per five acres. If the commissioners agree to change the zoning, then they're eligible up to a maximum, not that you have to give it to them, but a maximum of four dwelling units per acre, or 59 units. If they provide affordable housing pursuant to the regulations -- and the reason I think that Mr. Bosi told us it was 10 at the meeting as opposed to the 16 is because they did not qualify for the maximum density bonus based upon what they were providing. So if it's 10 dwelling units per acre, it's a total of 146 units. If it's 16, it's a total of 234 units, which is 100 units less than what they're proposing. They're exempting themselves from the GMP, although it's -- they're allowed to. Any Page 44 of 100 Packet Pg. 48 April 6, 2023 5.A.a developer is allowed to come to you and say, we're going to write our own Growth Management Plan; we don't want to follow the commissioners'. They're allowed to do that. And developer can come in and say, we don't want to follow the commissioners' PUD or land -use regulations; we want to write our own. They're allowed to do that, too. But you, as planning commissioners, are also allowed to say, thank you but no thank you. Why is it important to include the GMPAs and PUD ordinances with the regulations for affordable housing? Because one of the many, many developments that have received affordable housing density bonuses is Allura. Allura was an apartment complex on Livingston Road just north of Immokalee Road. And what happened was the commissioners on the fly had to try and negotiate an affordable housing density bonus. Next page. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I can wait till she's done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. FLAGG: So if you'll look at your screens, BCC minutes, September 24th, 2019, Allura PUD ordinance, these were the minutes from the BCC meeting. Mr. Klatzkow: Well, yeah, but if someone is at 93 percent, are we -- is it going to be pro rata? I mean, what -- I love doing things on the fly. Commissioner Solis: They're not eligible. Mr. Klatzkow: Were there [sic] between 80 and 90 [sic], right? Mr. Yovanovich: That was our goal was to meet that need, and that's why we did the restriction. If you want to open up who's eligible, that's fine, but we thought we were doing a good thing by targeting nurses and teachers and firefighters and police officers. Mr. Klatzkow: But it's a 42,000 floor. You may not find a lot of nurses and teachers making less than 42,000. Commissioner Solis: We may not. Mr. Klatzkow: But if you're limiting it to essential services and they're opening it up for 45 days and they don't find anybody making less than that, you're never going to have it. That's all I'm saying. In this exchange, Mr. Klatzkow, as you know, Chief County Attorney, is attempting to point out that the 24 affordable housing units in this PUD is meaningless. The proposed PUD ordinance limited the 45-day advertising to teachers, firefighters, and police officers, all who generally have a salary greater than 42,000. After 45 days, the PUD ordinance would permit them to rent these units at full market rate to the open market. If rented to essential service, it's still rented at full market rate, which is thousands of dollars a month. Next page. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're talking about a right of first refusal, which is clearly not what's being proposed here. MS. FLAGG: Correct, but this is an example of trying to do things on the fly, because you're excluding -- exempting yourself from the regulations. That's what they've asked to do. They want to replace an 11-page regulation with two little paragraphs. Mr. Yovanovich: The answer is, you know, you have [sic] -- to work this? Ms. Ashton drafted the language we believe is consistent. You can read it as well as I can, in the interest of time. In the second exchange he states that there's -- 31 units will be limited to households at 80 percent or less AMI. The proposed ordinance does not require the units to run with the land. What is developer rents at full market rate? There's no enforcement provision. And these two little paragraphs, same thing, doesn't run with the land. No enforcement provision. No violation process. Then we go on to Exchange 3, Commissioner Saunders asks -- I'm not sure if it's for Mr. -- next page -- Mr. Yovanovich or for our staff. I don't know if you have a breakdown of the Page 45 of 100 Packet Pg. 49 April 6, 2023 5.A.a units. We have 30 units set aside for 30 years. Will there be a mix of one-, two- and three -bedrooms? Mr. Yovanovich: The answer is in -- your code requires that we do a mixture of one-, two- and three-. But this is the problem: If it's not written in the PUD ordinance, the code doesn't apply. And so, in this exchange, Commissioner Saunders is asking for a breakdown of the units. He states it's in the code, and it is in the commissioners' regulations; however, the developer has no requirement to provide a mix of one-, two- and three- affordable bedroom units because, like this one, it's not in these two little paragraphs. So this whole conversation this morning was granting a significant density bonus. Remember, they are entitled to one unit for five acres. They are eligible up to -- not at, up to four units per acre. And the only reason that we're talking about 23 units per acre is because they're saying they're providing affordable housing; however, this (indicating) is not affordable housing. This is affordable housing. Significant density bonuses have been granted to developers based on a few incomplete or unenforceable PUD paragraphs in the PUD ordinance. Don't let this happen again. The residents in the Orange Blossom Alliance, representing more than 3,000 households, request that the Planning Commission deny this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We will absolutely hear from staff and petitioner on the points that you've made and satisfy ourselves that we have meaningful restrictions and conditions with respect to affordable housing. I guarantee you we will do that. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I just want to thank you. That was -- that was really -- those were some really good points for us to consider. You know, I don't know what the answer if -- you know, if these things are covered or not, but you certainly, you know, made me -- you know, made me -- MS. FLAGG: They're not covered. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we'll find out. MS. FLAGG: Not in this. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we'll find out what that's missing, if anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We will go over it thoroughly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: My point is to compliment you, because you brought up some good points, and we will -- we will thoroughly, you know, render those interesting, even more interesting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Diane's no stranger to the podium. MS. FLAGG: Good to see you, Joe. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's five minutes -- four minutes after noon. There's no way that we could have completed this by 1:00 p.m., and so the general rule is that we break every hour and a half. We might as well go to lunch now. We're going to be here this afternoon anyway. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How many more speakers do we have? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got five or six, right? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have eight more speakers here in the room with us and one online for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So without objection, we stand in recess for lunch until 1:00 p.m. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:04 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. Page 46 of 100 Packet Pg. 50 April 6, 2023 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Mr. Youngblood, who is next on the registered speaker list? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, our next registered speaker is Tyler Day. He's going to be followed by Robert Leitner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Day. MR. DAY: Well, if you don't mind, I have my notes in front of me here, and I would like to go over those with you. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you people before. My name is Tyler Day, and I've lived in the Village of Monterey on Orange Blossom for over 30 years. As a former president of our master association for six years and president of our villa association for six years and a member of our master and villa boards for another 14 years, I'm quite familiar with what works and doesn't work with our communities and the county. As cofounder of the Orange Blossom Alliance, I worked with the county planners and commissioners over the years who have protected Orange Blossom corridor to properly direct our fire [sic] commissioners and establish Orange Blossom as a constrained and protected road. In summarizing, David Renner has done an excellent job, described the rationale for our opposition to -- or modification to this Haven project. He is supported by virtually all the 3,000 residents in the communities surrounding the area. There are 14 communities. And consideration needs to be given to the residents that already live there, not only the people that will be coming in in any proposed Haven project. Based on the proposal, this Haven development is definitely not consistent or compatible with the character, height, and density of our established and lovely surrounding communities. The infusion of any additional 5- to 700 automobiles from this Haven project will severely tax the already crowded and busy and accident-prone Orange Blossom Drive adjacent to this proposed 336-unit project. Now, if you consider that these 4- to 700 cars are going to need to have a place to park when they come home from work or wherever [sic] they are doing, they only have 102 parking spots. So where are the other cars going to park? This shows somewhat of a lack of planning in this proposal and is questionable for a lot of other things that they are proposing, which are not consistent with the communities that surround them. Monterey and other Orange Blossom residents support the more affordable housing but with a more balanced approach, more consistent and compatible with the existing neighborhoods. In short, despite the builder's big -building pitch by everybody and anybody, this Haven project is the wrong approach in the wrong place with only a -- that can only negatively affect the 12 communities surrounding the area. I've been in your place. I've been a company planner and marketer not only in the U.S., but in 11 countries. Sometimes it's painful, as it might be, that you have to say no. In this case, this project is not the right place for this -- in our communities as presented, especially at 23 units per acre. So I thank you for the opportunity of summarizing what -- some of the things Dave said and, once again, appearing before you, as I have done in past years when you were probably in grade school. But other than that, we are very serious as an Orange Blossom community. There are 3,000 people in 14 communities that are going to be affected by this. So it's very important that we -- if approved, it's moderated in such a manner that it is not destructive or negatively affects the communities that surround it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Day. Mr. Youngblood. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be Robert Leitner. He's going to be followed by, forgive me, Mariusz Pieczalski. MR. LEITNER: Hello. My name is Robert Leitner. I'm a resident at Villages of Monterey on Orange Blossom. I began my relocation down to Florida in 2015, became a full-time resident in Florida at the end of 2021. Page 47 of 100 Packet Pg. 51 April 6, 2023 Despite coming from New Jersey, which I know is -- I'm in the minority when people ask -- when I tell people I came from the northeast, they assume it was Cleveland because everything is based on the Midwest. But given the fact that the East Coast of Florida was just so overdeveloped, and that's the typical place where people from the northeast, as I call it, go, Southwest Florida was extremely appealing because it doesn't have that overdevelopment. I mean, to me, Miami is Manhattan with a beach. And I think what Collier County is, even though it's getting more crowded, it's still far from that, but I think that needs to be kept in check. We don't want to create something where, you know, we have that abundant amount of overdevelopment. There is a Growth Management Plan in place to help manage that, and I strongly advise that we look at that. I mean, that was something I looked at before becoming a resident in the area, the Growth Management Plan, looking at where I was choosing, you know, to live and to relocate, and that was a very important aspect. I know that things aren't going to stay the same, but understanding what guidelines and restrictions are in place to prevent, you know, a huge shopping center from appearing down the block from me -- I know that's not what this is -- but there are rules put in place to help control and manage development. And, you know, looking at what it was or what it still is, I think it's a good plan, and it's there for a reason. And, you know, I strongly hope, you know, that we can stick with that. There were comments made -- I'll try not to reiterate any of the points already made, as the Chairman said. You know, things were said quite well before. But a couple of points I did want to bring up. It was mentioned that, you know, Orange Blossom was restricted to just two lanes based on some previous guidelines that were passed, and, you know, well, now we're going to suffer because, you know, it can't handle the additional traffic. I think everybody knew that at the time. I think the question needs to be asked, why did we want to keep it two lanes, is because we don't want all of that constant traffic, you know, utilizing that as a thoroughfare on an east/west. You know, that's why we have things like Pine Ridge and Vanderbilt. There were comments made about, you know, however many additional cars, 500, 700, whatever you consider, and there was -- somebody was saying, well, it's not that bad. It's not like everybody leaves at once. True, but there's a reason we have rush hour, and that's because a lot of people leave in a small window. If everything was spaced out throughout the whole day, yes, none of this would be a problem. But people do tend to leave at certain times of the day, and they come back home at certain times of the day. So, you know, we shouldn't be ignorant to that fact as well. It's also important not to look at this development in isolation, as several people have mentioned. You know, this is one of four corners at the intersection of Airport -Pulling and Orange Blossom, and I think it's important to remember that what we do here is going to be used as precedent for those other corners and, really, you know, that's part of a Growth Management Plan. This is not a, you know, what do we do with this one Tract B. It's what are we going to do with this whole area and how is this going to fit into it. There was comments about the pending legislature [sic] that, you know, says you can't stand in the way of somebody wanting to develop if they're going to provide 40 percent of affordable housing. They're not going to so, I mean, that Live Local, I believe, doesn't sound like it's going to be applicable, unless I've misinterpreted it. If the developer can't make enough money by building something that is, you know, lower density and has the appropriate amount of affordable housing, maybe the project just doesn't make sense. Maybe they're overpaying for the land. Maybe development costs are just too high right now. You know, if somebody says their land is worth a lot because of what can be built on it, well, if you can't build this on it, maybe the land just isn't worth that much. I'm not saying it's worthless. Clearly, it's very valuable. But maybe they've overvalued it based on what really can be built there. Page 48 of 100 Packet Pg. 52 April 6, 2023 CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're at five minutes, Mr. Leitner. MR. LEITNER: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please wrap it up. MR. LEITNER: Two last points then. One, there's connection between what's being proposed for The Haven and the Carlisle but, yet, you know, they say that The Haven is not going to have access to Orange Blossom, but the Carlisle does. What's there to prevent the residents of The Haven from just exiting through the Carlisle's access out Orange Blossom? I mean, they're going to come in the same way. Can't they just go back out on Orange Blossom? And that's basically it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. LEITNER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Youngblood. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be Mariusz Pieczalski. Is he still here? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I guess not. Our next speaker is going to be Glenn Trout. Is Glenn here? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Bob Rosenblum? There's Bob. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There we go. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Bob's going to be followed by Willis Kriz. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just --I don't even know who did it. I heard it. But you're showing us as a board and certainly our chairman gross disrespect. He's already asked to not have reactions, and someone was just clapping. We're hereto do our job, and the clapping, we've already explained -- our chairman has already explained on our behalf that that's not appropriate here. And to do that just tells us you don't really respect us. So I -- that's disappointing. It certainly doesn't help your position. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Rosenblum. MR. ROSENBLUM: Yes. My name is Bob Rosenblum. I live in Stonegate, which is on Orange Blossom, and I'm a member of the Orange Blossom Alliance, when I have time, with the Steering Committee. It's hard to keep up with them, because they are doing a lot of work on our behalf. First of all, I'd just like to comment on Dave Renner's presentation to you all and your reaction to it. I know you were trying to understand the basis of some of the comments that he made, but I don't think what came out of it was as respectful to the Alliance as it could have been, to be honest, and that is, he's standing on the shoulders of 3,000 people, 2,500 of which have taken the opportunity to stop what they're doing during the day and sign a petition against this project. And when he talks about traffic, 3,000 people, essentially, are telling him their experience with the traffic in that area, which is a pretty darn good description of what's going on on the streets, okay. And when I read -- when I took the time to read the traffic report -- and I know that Norm did it according to the, you know, the methodology -- that reports says we're going to get 2 percent of that traffic coming onto Stonegate, onto Orange Blossom. So when people come out of this proposed project, they can only go south, as has been well established. The only way to go north, east, or west, which is a lot of the volume, is to do a U-turn, go up to the intersection, and either go straight or turn either way. So for a methodology that's been developed over the decades here, to say that 2 percent of the traffic is going to go on Orange Blossom is not credible, and that's why you hear some of the emotion and the clapping and things like that, which you've asked us not to do and we shouldn't do. Page 49 of 100 Packet Pg. 53 April 6, 2023 But that's what's behind this. This is 3,000 residents who pay their taxes, try to follow the rules, and are not necessarily developers with, you know, assets or projects to protect. And I hope that you're listening to that and get the import of what's been said, because, I mean, it's us. We're the ones that live there. You make a decision and move on. The developer potentially does a project and probably sells it and moves on. So we're the ones left holding the bag. And I know you know that from other projects, but it seems like it's not going our way. I just traveled from Orange Blossom to here. It took me 25 minutes at an average of 25 miles an hour. And when I went through the intersections, I had to wait for two lights, sometimes three lights to get through an intersection. A stoplight's a stoplight driving. So if the methodology that's been adopted is yielding that kind of a result for your community members, I would hope somewhere, somehow somebody would re -think that. I know the developers don't want you to re -think that, because it seems to go their way. But that is -- that's a -- you know, a real sentiment from the community to you. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but just trying to be a little bit provocative about accepting the standard as -is, because it's not working for us, okay. Second thing about this project is, again, on traffic. I mean, the exit for this empties onto the third -most -prone -to -accident stretches of roads in all of the county. Now, I got that from the '21 update. It took me awhile to read it and find it in there. But that's what it says. This is one of the most accident-prone stretches of road, and we're going to add hundreds of cars, maybe thousands once these projects get going, okay. I mean, nobody's going to be happy with that. So when you hear from the community that we're saying less is better, the hope that there's -- we know we can't stop it. I mean, we're pragmatists. But we hope that you can take and embrace something about less being better. Now, I was in business. I've been a CPA and all that kind of stuff. So when I hear somebody come with a project and they haven't really modified it and then they complain that, geez, we can't do any less, they didn't come with Plan B. They came with Plan A. And you know they have a Plan B. I mean, you've sat through these things so many times. What happens if you say no and see what they came back with to the benefit of the residents who are already here? Is there an answer to that? I'm just interested to know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your question is noted. MR. ROSENBLUM: Thank you. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're also at five minutes, sir, so please wrap it up. MR. ROSENBLUM: Okay. All right. I think that's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, Mr. Rosenblum. Mr. Youngblood. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Willis Kriz is our next speaker, followed by Linda Simon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, I'll ask you to spell your last name for me, please. MR. KRIZ: It's K-r-i-z as in zoo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. KRIZ: Good morning -- or afternoon, it is now. My name is Willis Kriz. And I'm retired, and I have lived in Collier County full time since August of 1994. That's 29 years. For most of those years, I lived in Eagle Creek, which is south of the intersection of 41 and Collier County and State Highway 951, and I watched the development that enveloped that intersection. When I first lived there, there was one store, the Circle K, and the filling station on that corner, and now it's enveloped in massive development. And I think it's a textbook example of what can happen when the development process overlooks the impact on the surrounding area. For the last year and a half, I've lived at Bridgewater Bay on Orange Blossom Road -- Drive. My wife and I access Orange Blossom several times a week to go to the intersection of Airport -Pulling Road and Orange Blossom, and we've witnessed that the volume of traffic -- in fact, have seen a couple of serious accidents there. It's hard for us to believe that a Page 50 of 100 Packet Pg. 54 April 6, 2023 5.A.a high -density development such as we're talking about can even be considered. It's been said that traffic emanating from The Haven development can only turn right, and I'm not sure it really, really was understood. It must turn right, and it has to travel south until it finds a place it can make a U-turn if it intends to go north. And U-turns impede the normal flow of traffic, and they're legal unless they're otherwise posted. And that's, in fact, what we have just south of the area. The first intersection where traffic can make a U-turn is posted no turn. And then when that -- when traffic returns from the south, there has to be a cut through the median, which the plan shows, and that is going to create nothing but problems with -- left turning traffic into the development must cut across three lanes of southbound Airport Road. I served on the Collier -- Conservation Collier advisory board from its inception for two three-year terms beginning in 2023. And in that capacity, I had the opportunity see the developments all across Collier County, and it really underscored for me that property owners have -- have a right to develop their property however they choose within the law and that people can move to anywhere they want if they have the means to do so. But it doesn't mean -- it doesn't mean that they have an absolute right to impact those who already reside in the area. So I would simply recommend that you consider this development, that you deny -- not deny the proposal but reduce the number of units that can be built. The density that's proposed is way too high. It generates way too much traffic for the area. So those are my comments, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Mr. Youngblood. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. Linda Simon is going to be our next speaker, followed by Kevin Barry. Is Linda here? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. Kevin Barry. MR. BARRY: Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Barry, and I'm a resident of Naples. I am not a lawyer. I actually don't even have -- I'm not here to advocate for or against this particular development, but I am involved in the issue of workforce housing in the community, actively involved in that, and so my concerns really are resolving around the affordability or reduced -- what do you call that? Reverse -- reduced cost housing. And so listening to all this has proven to be somewhat confusing to me, because my understanding from the applicant is that one of their main concerns and one of the main pillars of their argument is to -- by getting these significant density bonuses, is to serve the needs of affordable housing and workforce housing here. And so these are significant density bonuses and, yet, I understand that the -- excuse me. I just have to look at this -- the Land Development Code, which was written by the -- adopted by the county commissioners and updated as recently as 2019, and referencing 2.06 -- I believe that's the document that Ms. Flagg was holding up -- specifies very specifically what a developer needs to do to meet the density bonuses. So that's there. You guys wrote it, okay. The residents didn't write it. And yet, if I understand this process correctly, an applicant or a developer can come in with the PUD and -- and please understand, if I don't understand this correctly, I'm happy to be corrected -- but can write a PUD that provides a workaround to the code that's in 2.06. And so my first question is, I need somebody to explain that to me. I know that you're not going to do that right now, so that's okay. But the problem with these developer -written PUDs is that, historically, the affordable housing quotient has not been met, and I'm talking historically. And my understanding is they have not been met because there's no enforcement and there's no auditing process. So I am aware of a number of developments in the community that have been built with these developer -written PUDs that, to this day, have not fulfilled their obligation regarding affordable housing. So my final question to you -- and, again, I know you're not going to answer this here right Page 51 of 100 Packet Pg. 55 April 6, 2023 now. I understand that process -- is why is that the case? I mean, you have a code. You guys wrote it. I don't understand why developers are allowed to provide workarounds for themselves. And I will point out that the initial presentation this morning by the applicant was really largely built around their desire to help solve the affordable housing crisis in our community. And, frankly, noting the PUD that was submitted, I find that doubtful. So I appreciate your comments very -- I mean, your allowing me to make my comments today. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Mr. Youngblood -- Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Following the speakers, I would ask that Cormac come up and address that issue as well so the public is well aware. There were statements made that we are not monitoring or enforcing. I know of no such issue where we're not monitoring or enforcing. But, Cormac, I'd be -- ask if you'd be prepared to address that. I'll bring it up after we're finished with the speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Youngblood. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. We've had some folks rejoin us. I'm going to call on Mariusz Pieczalski again, or how about Glenn Trout? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. Then I will go online. Bill Diamond is going to be our online speaker, and he's going to be followed by Dottie Donnelly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Diamond, you're being prompted to unmute your microphone, sir. Can you hear us? MR. DIAMOND: Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Loud and clear. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we can. MR. DIAMOND: Thank you. Honestly, I don't have much to add other than support for the project. I appreciate all the information and all the presentations that were made. I am actually the executive director of the Carlisle, so I've been listening in. We do -- are very interested in this project, as far as it's south of us. And we understand all the information from the individuals that are on Orange Blossom and the communities that are there; however, we do like to see more growth in the area from a standpoint from rental communities just to help us with staffing. We are considerably low on staffing in many of the businesses in the area, as everybody stated, and this would help us as well to have our nurses and to have our staff to be able to service our residents. And there was a comment prior as well that we are only 25 percent assisted living; however, our average age of our residents that are living here is just over 90, so many of our residents are not driving any longer. So the statements made as far as density and all, it is supported from that standpoint, in my opinion. But we do support this and look forward to a partnership with the developer, and we think it's great for the community. Thank you very much for the time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Diamond. Mr. Youngblood. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. Our final speaker on this item is going to be Dottie Donnelly. Dottie, you're being prompted to unmute your microphone. Can you hear us okay? MS. DONNELLY: Yes, thank you very much. Can you hear me okay? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can. MS. DONNELLY: Thank you so much for allowing me the time to speak. I am an Emerald Lakes resident. I own two properties. I live in a home, and I also have a condo that I Page 52 of 100 Packet Pg. 56 April 6, 2023 5.A.a rent. So I fully understand wanting to be able to make the most use of properties that a person or a company or a group would own. However, I understand in my rental condo I can't simply rent out each bedroom of my three -bedroom condo separately to six people to live just because I want to make more money. That's a density issue and a rule issue, and I think that's what we're talking about here today. We're really not talking about low-income housing. We're really talking about density, and we're really talking about rules and regulations and codes that are already in place. It was mentioned at the beginning of this meeting that the developers also had projects approved in Collier County, including one right across from these county offices. Respectfully, this strip of Airport -Pulling Road is not a similar residential area to Orange Blossom at all. The Orange Blossom area is a family residential area. It's not an urban center. And if you step outside this building and look at the apartment building across the street, it's four stories high with a tall roof making it practically five stories high. It's not an appropriate building for a residential area of one- and two-story homes. Let's remind everybody today that the existing area of Orange Blossom that we're talking about is ag. It's not commercial. What's being requested is an exception or a change to the current regulations in place. I'd like to first refer also to the Collier County Land Development Code in the general provisions, 1.03.01. Paragraph D, it states, in the interpretation and application of any provision of these regulations, it shall be held to the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. That's what we're talking about today. This means responsible and balanced growth. In Section 1.05.01, Purpose Item B, it states: In order to foster and preserve public health, safety, comfort, and welfare and to aid in the harmonious, orderly, and progressive development of the unincorporated areas of Collier County, it is the intent of this LDC that the development process in Collier County be efficient in terms of time and expense, effective in terms of addressing the natural resource -- natural resource and public facility implications of proposed development, and equitable in terms of consistency with established regulations and procedures, respect for the rights of property owners -- I might repeat that. Respect for the rights of property owners -- and consideration of the interests of the citizens of Collier County. We are property owners. We are citizens of Collier County who are showing up today to appeal to you. In Section D, it states: It is the intent and purpose of this Land Development Code to establish and adopt comprehensive zoning regulations governing the use of land and water in the unincorporated areas of Collier County, Florida. These regulations are based on a comprehensive plan for future development and are enacted to protect, promote, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, order, appearance, convenience, et cetera. Multiple times this is stated in the code. Section E, this Land Development Code intends to accomplish and to provide for efficiency and economy in the process of future development and redevelopment, appropriate use of land, preservation, protection, conservation, and development of the natural resources of land, water, and air; convenience in circulation of traffic for the transport of people, goods, and commodities; protection of persons and properties, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera; promotion of amenities both public and private to maintain and improve the quality of life for all residents, and development consistent with the GMP. The speaker for the developer earlier today falsely mentioned that the public does not want low-income or low-cost housing. He also stated that the residents living in this area would want all low-income units to be in one established area of the development rather than spread throughout the complex. Nothing could be further from the truth. The citizens from the not Orange Blossom neighborhoods that are here today online and in person -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Donnelly, could you take a pause, please, because Page 53 of 100 Packet Pg. 57 April 6, 2023 5.A.a Commissioner Klucik has a question or comment. MS. DONNELLY: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just think that --you just stated something that was not factual about the petitioner, and I just -- I think that needs to be countered in real time. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I did not hear anyone -- the petitioner state that the residents are against the income -restricted housing at all. MS. DONNELLY: He actually did state that, so I would ask the person who's taking notes perhaps go back to this morning's comments and look through that. But he did state, because I was taking notes throughout the meeting. He stated that we do -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ma'am, I think there's universal agreement on the Board that you're incorrect in that, which that's fine. There's nothing wrong with -- you know, with having that information incorrect. But like I said, it needs to be countered in real time, which I have. MS. DONNELLY: Okay. Then I respectfully agree to your opinion -- that you can have your opinion. I would ask that after the meeting you go back and please read the notes, because he did say, in fact -- he did reference that the residents in this community would also want to have those low-income housing residents to be in one area, and that's -- nothing could be further from the truth. Those statements are false that were made earlier today, and it's a manipulation of the situation. This is not about low-income housing at all. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I'm going to interrupt you again. I'm going to interrupt you again, because you're not -- you're not gaining anything by repeating smears of the petitioner. You're smearing the petitioner, and you're smearing, you know, in a way that I think is important. You're trying to allege that they -- that they have a -- that they've said something about, you know, your community and they haven't, and -- MS. DONNELLY: Okay. So I'm just asking -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, no. I'm speaking. I'm speaking. And I'm just going to say adamantly again, you're also not helping your position by repeating the smear and then countering me and saying, you're wrong. Now, you might think I'm wrong all day. I'm just helping you understand that if you're going to go ahead and retort to me that you're right and I'm wrong on this particular point, that doesn't help you. But that's fine if you want to do that. Thank you. MS. DONNELLY: Thank you for your comments and your advice. I will not retort that further, but I would ask that you would commit, then, to going back and reading the notes from this morning and the comments that the developer said. And once you've read those comments, then perhaps you can give me a call or an email to apologize once you see those comments that were, in fact, in the notes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Donnelly? MS. DONNELLY: This issue today is -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Donnelly, you've got -- you're way over time, but you were interrupted a couple of times, so I'll give you another minute to finish up, please. MS. DONNELLY: Thank you. This issue is about density, housing density, volume of traffic, amount of noise, size of development, additional drain on land, sewer, air, roads, and water usage, capacity. The room everyone is sitting in today has a capacity, and that is assuming that everyone is sitting in their seats and not attempting to move about. That's similar to the traffic on Orange Blossom Road. There's capacity at standstill, and there's capacity when people are moving about. And also, more importantly, overall compatibility with the neighborhood community. The project is not in compliance with the current Growth Management Plan and the code of the LDC today. It is not. It is asking for an exception, and we're asking for you to please not approve that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Donnelly. Page 54 of 100 Packet Pg. 58 April 6, 2023 5.A.a Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I would ask staff a question. Because I've heard it almost throughout implied that for some way or fashion that we're bending the rules by allowing an amendment to the Growth Management Plan. Could you please explain to the public the process for amending the Growth Management Plan or processing a growth managed [sic] plan amendment and that this is not unusual and it's fairly common if somebody wants to amend the Growth Management Plan. So I would ask staff if you could clarify for the public in general, because there are a lot of accusations that for some reason this is a smoke and mirror and an attempt to get around the rules. So could you please explain. MR. BOSI: Well, any amendment to the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your mic. MR. BOSI: Thank you. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Any amendment to the Growth Management Plan is changing the rules that are within the GMP for a specific purpose, but that is a process that is codified within state statute as to how you go about to do such an amendment, the requirement for what data and analysis is required to provide the justification, how staff is to review that data and analysis, how the Board of County Commissioners, how the Planning Commission is to receive that information. We, on average, process probably seven to 10 GMP amendments with corresponding PUDs annually. It's a regulatory -- it's a regular process. The one thing I will say about the planning/zoning in anything, within the regulatory structure, it's a constant evolving dynamic. What's needed in 1990 for this community when we were a county of 220,000 is different than what we need as a community of 400,000. We evolve. Our plan evolves. The amendment process is provided for for either the Board of County Commissioners -- Planning Commission sometimes can direct Growth Management Plan amendments, sometimes there's staff -initiated Growth Management Plan amendments, and other times there is a private marketplace. The private marketplace identifies a deficiency within what the land use is yielding within a given jurisdiction, and they seek to cure that deficiency if the Growth Management Plan is not providing for it by amending the Growth Management Plan by a set criteria that needs to be satisfied. So it is a process that is not unusual and commonplace in most jurisdictions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it's controlled by Florida Statute. MR. BOSI: 163. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In reviewing this, you complied with --I just want to set the record straight. I mean, I'm not a proponent here, but I just want to make sure that the record is straight in regards to review by staff and the applicant and advising the applicant this is in full compliance with Florida Statute; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Yeah. This isn't a comment about whether it should or should not be approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. BOSI: This is simply, from a statutory procedural due process standpoint, they've satisfied the requirements of the statute. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, the second question, then -- because I've heard it a couple of times about capacity and water/sewer, other types. All of the essential public services, all of the staffs have reviewed this and have found it in full compliance with the impacts that it may have on the listed essential public services. I could go over -- through them, but were there any services that were identified that would deem this not acceptable as a request from the applicant? MR. BOSI: The process, when we have a GMP amendment or a rezoning petition, we do a courtesy review. We look to see if there's water -- potable water, wastewater, all of the traffic -- traffic capacity, and we review it for consistency with our Concurrency Management System. None of the utility providers have -- or any of the infrastructure providers had indicated Page 55 of 100 Packet Pg. 59 April 6, 2023 5.A.a this would create a deficit beyond the adopted levels of service that are associated with each one of those facilities. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And schools as well, because I also heard that the schools were over -- understaffed or at least at capacity. Was there any objection from the Collier public school system in regards to school capacity? MR. BOSI: No, and they were provided a copy of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, unfortunately, Amy Taylor's [sic] not here. She's our representative from the school board. But as far you're concerned, there was no objection in regards to the available capacity at any of the schools associated with this development? MR. BOSI: There was none. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further to, if I may, the Vice Chairman, with respect to process, I want the public to understand this. As a Growth Management Plan amendment, this is going to have to get a supermajority approval from the Board of County Commissioners. That's four out of five people on the Board of County Commissioners are going to have to approve that. So if you get two commissioners who don't, this doesn't go anywhere. So -- and our -- we vote by majority vote, but we're only making recommendations, so that's something to keep in mind. And however this comes out, you will have every opportunity to be heard before the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you. Anything further on the staff report? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Before we go -- before we go to rebuttal, and if this meets the approval of the rest of the Planning Commission, we have heard -- well, Ms. Flagg brought it up, but it's also been alluded to by others -- the whole issue of the single -page or double -page substitution or LDC 2.06.00 et seq. And I -- for me at least, I would like to hear a thorough explanation of what is gained or what is lost if we go from the 11-pager to the two -pager or the one -pager, and do others -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I would like that, and included in that, Cormac, an explanation in regards to enforcement in regards to the rules either through enforcement -- because, again, it was stated on the record -- and, again, this may be an opinion, but the monitoring and the enforcement that the staff performs in order to assure compliance, can you discuss that as well? MR. GIBLIN: Not a problem. For the record -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you start, I just want to make clear to the applicant that this -- you will have an opportunity to respond, and it won't be considered part of the rebuttal, but we want to get a full picture. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Have you closed the public comments? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I haven't, and I haven't intentionally because I'm probably going to want to re -call Ms. Flagg and maybe others, so I did that intentionally. Commissioner Shea, did you want to be heard before we go -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Actually, I was going to say the same thing that Joe brought up, is have Cormac address the 2.06 issue as well as the issue that none of the commitments are ever met. I mean, those are pretty big -- both of them were pretty big statements which we'd like to hear the other side of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want a full exposition of this from all sides so that we have a complete understanding. Go ahead. MR. GIBLIN: Sure, not a problem. For the record, Cormac Giblin, your interim Economic Development and Housing director. I've been in the back taking notes most of the -- all morning, and I'm ready to run through what I saw as some of the highlights that need to be addressed. I guess the number -one issue, why does not LDC 2.06 apply in this case? And the short Page 56 of 100 Packet Pg. 60 April 6, 2023 answer is, they're not using 2.06 to achieve their density. They're doing a Comp Plan amendment. They're achieving their density an alternate way. So if this development had decided to use the existing Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code to achieve the density that they're seeking, all of the requirements of 2.06 would apply. There was a fork in the road before that, however, and they've decided, just like any other property owner in Collier County is entitled to, to seek an alternate means and propose something different to the Board of County Commissioners. So that is why the holistic 11 pages of 2.06 in your LDC don't apply. One of the speakers said that that was a, quote, workaround. Well, quite frankly, every PUD that is approved in Collier County is a workaround of the LDC; otherwise, everything would be straight zoning. And we've got hundreds of PUDs in the county. Emerald Lakes is a PUD. Villages of Monterey is a PUD. Mill Run is in a PUD. So that is the development model that the county has chosen to move forward in the best way that the County Commission sees best for the future of the county. Again, otherwise, everything would be straight zoning, and there would be no reason for you gentlemen here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you're eliminating all the requirement -- detail requirement. Are you going to get to how -- MR. GIBLIN: I am, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- how we get that back in there? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. So let's talk about why 2.06 was written, who traditionally avails themself of it, and what has historically been done. 2.06 was written sometime in the late '90s, and it's been amended a few times since then. But it is geared towards that affordable housing developer who has a mission to provide affordable housing units as a part of their core values and mission to the community. Think Habitat for Humanity, think non-profit developer or those that use the -- make themselves available to use the state housing tax credit programs. Those programs come with their own set of very, very prescribed regulations down to how many bedrooms are in each unit, what the exact rents are for each unit, which units in each building are designated for which income levels. What brand doorknobs are you using has to be involved in these developers' pro formal. And they do that going in knowing that the payoff in the end is that the financing for the project, or majority of the financing, is underwritten by the state or federal government. So they're willing to make all those types of commitments in exchange to get the project financed and built. Outside of those developers who have that as their core mission or are doing a, you know, tax credit deal, we've seen very, very little other -- market -rate developers avail themselves of 2.06 to incorporate a smaller percentage of affordable units in their property or in their development because of that requirement that it is very -- it's written to go hand in hand with someone who's ready to make those types of commitments in exchange for their financing. It's not written to coincide very well with a market -rate developer who's just trying to include a few affordable units for the public good. So, therefore, to consolidate the 11 pages of affordable housing regulations down to one page that's in a PUD, we didn't want to take every requirement of the 11 pages and make them regurgitated in the PUD. What we wanted to do was take the salient highlighted points: The number of units, the income limits that's going to be served, how long they're restricted, and then the method that they're going to be monitored on an ongoing basis. One of the speakers mentioned Altura. Allura was one of the first GMP/PUD projects that came through in 2019, and that one being the nature that it was one of the first, there was some sausage being made here at the podium in front of the Board of County Commissioners. And while the developer and the Board are negotiating, sometimes it falls to staff later on to pick up the pieces and figure out how to write something that's enforceable. I feel that we did a very good job with that, with Altura. We have a PUD ordinance in Allura. The people -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before we move too much further into Allura, Commissioner Page 57 of 100 Packet Pg. 61 April 6, 2023 5.A.a Klucik is signaling, so I'm going to ask him if he wants to speak now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. Yes, I would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So regarding what I understand, is this the only language -- this one page is the only language that's going to be in there regarding -- MR. GIBLIN: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So what I'm confused by, then, is -- and maybe it's really easy. You know, maybe it's not confusing at all based on your answer. What happens, you know, if there was a violation? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. That is an easy question -- that's an easy answer. Just like any other PUD commitment, whether it be the size of their landscape buffers, their right turn lane, their building height, whatever it might be, it's fully enforceable. It runs with the land no matter how many times that PUD is bought and sold. Those restrictions run with it, and they are referred to Code Enforcement. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So my question simply is, in the -- our public speaker, you know, brought out, hey, what about the -- you know, the lien language. So there's lien language in that particular housing language that isn't being used now, like you said, because it's for a particular instance. Is there similar language -- you know, what is the enforcement mechanism? What -- can Code Enforcement -- what can they do? MR. GIBLIN: Well, the lien language, first of all, only applies in an owner -occupant -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, right. In this case we don't have that. MR. GIBLIN: -- situation. In this case, as in Allura and the half dozen, or, actually more than a dozen that have been approved since Allura, they are enforceable to the full extent of the law as any other PUD restriction through Code Enforcement. Now, in LDC 2.06, it enumerates what those are. I think it's $50-a-day fine, brought before the Board, up to including revocation of CO. So just like if they were found in violation of any other restriction in this PUD, these hold the same weight. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Thank you. That's a great answer. And then, you know, what is the mechanism -- so, you know, whether this scenario is likely or not, let's assume, you know, that it does unfold this way. Oh, gosh, the more income -restricted properties, there's no takers. I don't know why that would be the case, but let's assume it. Is that accurate, then, that you wouldn't bump that up to the less -restricted -income category? It would just revert to market value? MR. GIBLIN: That's not the case in this or any of the other approved PUDs that we've approved. They are required to -- these are -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is that what I heard earlier? MR. GIBLIN: That is what you heard. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So that was a misunderstanding from the speaker. MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. Again, each of these PUDs was negotiated separately, so they all have different intricacies and nuances. But any of them that require units to be set aside as affordable housing, they can't just turn them into market rate if they don't fill them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further to that, if I may, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I'm done. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. The issue was raised about whether these obligations run with the land, and so we've got an owner of these rental units. Say the owner sells the properties, the investment, to another owner. Is there more than just the ordinance in question that causes those obligations to run with the land? MR. GIBLIN: It is not. It's just governed by the PUD ordinance, which is a law. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And, County Attorney, you're satisfied that the ordinance, which I guess is filed for record with the Clerk of Court, that that puts the public on notice that this obligation runs with the land? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. Page 58 of 100 Packet Pg. 62 April 6, 2023 5.A.a CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Giblin. MR. GIBLIN: A couple more points I want to touch -- Allura was brought up to some extent, and I wanted to just clarify the record, if I could, for that. That was Ordinance No. 2019-22. The commitment that's in the ordinance is that there will be 55 units that are given priority marketing to ESP renters, meaning essential service personnel, and there's a definition of essential personnel. It's police, firemen, teachers, people in public service. Thirty-one of those -- and those need to be advertised for 45 days, and if the -- an ESP renter cannot be found, then those can be rented to someone who's non -ESP. But, again, we're not talking about income -restricted affordable housing. We're just talking about priority marketing. However, 31 of those 55 must be rented at 80 percent or less of median income. There is no opt -out clause for those 31 units. If they do not rent, they stay empty. If they don't find someone, they stay empty. Those are at 80 percent of median income. Allura, as I mentioned, was one of these first models of the GMP and PUD that came through, and we're lucky that we do have -- it was four years ago about, and they have now gone through the entire site development building and construction process. And they have received a monitoring from the county's Community and Human Services division who goes -- who does the monitoring of all of these commitments. And they received a monitoring last year and were found to be in full compliance. That's an on -site monitoring. There's a team that goes out. They open up records for each -- each inspected unit. They look at people's pay stubs. They look at people's rents and their leases, and they certified that at that time that all of those units were being done in compliance, and that's a yearly monitoring. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just to clarify, as part of the zoning and part of the approval, that's fully agreed to by the developer or the management company, and they are obligated to consent to that audit; is that correct? MR. GIBLIN: Correct, that's in this PUD as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Otherwise, if they don't, it would negate the agreement, and they -- you could proceed with enforcement action; is that correct? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: Yes. There was a little bit mentioned about Bear Creek next door. Bear Creek was one of the first affordable housing developments built in Collier County. It was built in the early'90s. There are 120 units there; they're all two- and three -bedrooms. They are 100 percent occupied right now. They rent two -bedrooms for $899 a month and the three -bedrooms for $1,048 a month. But, again, they, just like every other affordable housing development in Collier County, are at 99 to 100 percent occupied. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're talking about the availability. I know Paul sits on the Affordable Housing now. I did for several years as well. What's your monthly shortfall right now, statistically? Do you have that data on availability of affordable houses? MR. GIBLIN: It's over -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the county. MR. GIBLIN: -- 60,000. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sixty thousand shortfall. That's your projection? MR. GIBLIN: There are over 60,000 households in Collier County who are currently cost burdened. As Mike said earlier, there's about 45,000 who currently commute to work every day to Collier County, so there are comfortably, you know, 40- to 60,000 units that are needed to make up the gap. Page 59 of 100 Packet Pg. 63 April 6, 2023 5.A.a COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And what was the recent commitment? Last meeting the Board made a pretty significant commitment to affordable housing, at the last meeting? MR. BOSI: The last meeting, the Board -- Mike Bosi, Zoning director. The Board was presented four of the last housing initiatives, and the Board has transmitted those to the state. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Those were the ones we talked about, then. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Those are the four that we approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That we approved, yeah. MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. GIBLIN: And just for another snapshot of the current picture out there --in the back of the room this morning -- Magnolia Square, a newer rental development, is renting two -bedrooms for $4,058 a month, three -bedrooms for $5,040, one -bedrooms for 3,069. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's market? MR. GIBLIN: That's market rate. Across the street they advertise rents for the -- it's Mara or Marea Apartments right now, Courthouse Shadows. The two -bedrooms are $3,307 a month. So the units that are provided in a development such as this, while they will have their market -rate units, these units that are at the 80 and 100 percent median income level are going to fill a very much -needed gap in our overall housing needs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else? MR. GIBLIN: Oh, one last thing. There was the question about do we have to -- or should they identify how many one -bedroom units there will be, how many two -bedrooms, how many three -bedrooms and, again, that is part -- if someone were to take advantage of the 2.06 LDC, that is part of it, again, because it's a very prescribed program, and the method of the financing there requires that all of those be put on the table up front. In this case and in the dozen or so in the past four years that the Board of County Commissioners has approved, the Board has opted to let the market figure that out. And people have different opinions on where the greatest need is. We do a housing study or housing needs analysis every year, and we find that there's need across the board, ones-, twos-, and threes-. It would be hard for me to sit here and tell you which one is more needed at this time. The City of Naples engaged with a private think tank last -- at the end of last year. Their analysis was that one -bedrooms were the most -needed category of affordable housing for the market here, again, for the first-time college graduate or even the elderly senior housing that a widower or widow that they only needed a one -bedroom. So there are needs across the board, and the stance of the Board has been to let the market figure out where those needs are and adjust the mix accordingly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. That's a wealth of knowledge. I appreciate it. It's very insightful to try to get a grasp on everything. I'm not sure why you're interim director. You should just be taking the whole deal. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He doesn't want to be. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The market -rate units that you just stated, any idea of what the occupancy is of those two projects? I know they don't have to tell you, but I was hoping maybe -- MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. I don't think the one across the street is fully built yet. Close to 100 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Close to 100 percent? MR. GIBLIN: We're members of the Naples Area Apartment Board, and we see their data. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Gotcha. And that's all. Thank you. Page 60 of 100 Packet Pg. 64 April 6, 2023 5.A.a CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Giblin, anything else? MR. GIBLIN: That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, you can speak now if you want. I was going to call up Ms. Flagg and ask her some questions that might give you some more material that you would want to speak to. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll speak any time, but I'll let her go first. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm going to want to talk to Mike Savage [sic]. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's later, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Flagg, would you approach the podium, please. So we've heard from Mr. Giblin that 2.06.00 et seq doesn't apply in this case. MS. FLAGG: Correct. He confirmed everything I said earlier. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And so something else is being offered to take its place and to try to meet the substance of the concerns. And so my question for you -- and I've got the 11 pages in front of me here, and I see a few things that maybe need to be addressed, but my question specifically to you is, what, in 2.06, that you think should necessarily be included in this development that's not there in the two -item one -page -- MS. FLAGG: So if you look at what I put on the visualizer, these are all the things that are excluded from the two paragraphs and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are they the bullet points? MS. FLAGG: They are. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Starting with the word "process"? MS. FLAGG: So the first bullet point is bedrooms. Community Foundation just did a data study and confirmed that the greatest need for affordable housing is for families, which a one -bedroom will not accommodate. So in the PUD ordinance, if it doesn't specify how many one-, two-, and three -bedrooms they're going to provide, then they'll provide all one -bedrooms because they can make more money by only providing one -bedrooms. So that's not addressing our greatest need. If you look at the bullet points, it also excludes all this specificity. And I'm not saying that they have to go through the 2.06 process. What I'm saying is they need to include this specificity to make sure that we actually do get affordable housing units. In this -- and I don't know, because Heidi mentioned that the two paragraphs changed. Is there something more current? Does anyone have what the current PUD looks like now? Heidi, I think you said they went to -- they eliminated 80 percent and went to 100? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think they were ever at 80 percent. I think they're at 100. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you talking about affordable housing? MS. FLAGG: No, I'm at AMI. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're doing 22.6 percent affordable housing units, of which 11.3 percent are at the 80 percent and below category and 11.3 percent are at the 100 percent and below category. That has not changed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is exactly what it is. We are covering both the 80 percent and below and 100 percent and below. There's been no change to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. MS. FLAGG: Well, good. Then I can show you what I showed you earlier. So instead of all those bullet points that I showed you that the PUD ordinance excludes, all you're going to get is Paragraph A and Paragraph C. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you want to offer us some specific additional points to consider? Page 61 of 100 Packet Pg. 65 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MS. FLAGG: The bullet points. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I have to question, are they required and for what reason? Because we heard the testimony from Cormac, this is audited, they're required to be audited, and other than you feeling better -- and I use the word "feeling better" because this is specified -- what's the benefit of this specification versus the requirement simply to provide affordable housing? Now, there is an issue about the number of bedrooms. The only time, like I said, I've seen us specify is when they come in like Cormac said with a detailed affordable housing. But other than that, I leave it up to my colleagues as well if we want to get into that specificity in regard to the number of bedrooms and how many are affordable. But what does this do -- MS. FLAGG: I'm going to tell you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that is different than what's in the PUD now? MS. FLAGG: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not clear on that. MS. FLAGG: So your two paragraphs is all you're going to get. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand that. MS. FLAGG: So the -- all of these bullet points are not in the PUD ordinance; therefore, the only thing you get is what is in these two paragraphs. So, for instance, it was important enough to include a restrictive covenant in the public records if they were going to sell a unit. There's no restrictive covenant in the covenant -- in the public records if the developer sells the development. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's not correct. It's still -- they're still subject to the PUD language. MS. FLAGG: But a restrictive covenant -- a PUD language is a PUD. When you put a restrictive covenant against a land, that carries with the land. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So does the PUD. MS. FLAGG: Well, I can tell you that there's a reason that county staff recommended a restrictive covenant if a unit was sold, but that is not included in this two -paragraph PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're getting into the discussion back and forth. But that was for units that were for market or for sale. These are not for -sale units. These are rentals. MS. FLAGG: The developer's from out of town. He doesn't own the land yet, and he could very well sell the land. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That doesn't matter. We've already heard testimony three times that if the land -- ownership is transferred, the responsibility for complying with the language in the PUD, which essentially is -- that becomes the Land Development Code for this piece of property, stays with the land; am I wrong? It stays with the land. MR. BOSI: (Shakes head.) MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're correct, and the County Attorney has opined, and I happen to agree with that opinion because the ordinance is filed for record with the Clerk of the Courts -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and it is, therefore, exposed to all public visualization and, therefore, runs with the land. Now, before I turn it over to Mr. Yovanovich -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask her a couple of questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, not yet, but I'll let you. I mean, I'll let you. I'm going to ask Mr. Yovanovich to take your bullet points and go over them with us and tell them [sic] either how they are already covered or how they shouldn't apply or how it's unacceptable. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just ask her a question first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Quickly. Page 62 of 100 Packet Pg. 66 April 6, 2023 MR. YOVANOVICH: It's real easy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: You ended your conversation with the Board that you wanted this to be denied if any density was above 16 units per acre. Is that still your position if we consent to every one of these bullet points? MS. FLAGG: Actually, based on the density type that you're providing, it would be 10 units per acre. MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever. I'm just asking you, are you still opposed to the project -- MS. FLAGG: No, no, let me finish. If you agree to include all these bullet points and comply with the density of 10 units per acre, which is a total of 146 units -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So your answer's no. MS. FLAGG: -- I totally support the project. MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer is no on our request for 25 units per acre. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's go back to the proper order of sequence here. So anything further, Ms. Flagg, before we go into this? MS. FLAGG: Somebody else had a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. If I may go back -- Terri, you will love this -- I want to make sure I understand this correctly; that's my famous line. I believe Cormac just explained most, maybe all but one of these bullet points that are included in this PUD that stays with the land that goes for any current or new owner for the next 30 years, that there is a process for criminal enforcement, that they do have inspections to verify occupancy in accordance to the commitment and the entire program that's put together. I apologize. Did I not understand what we just heard a few minutes ago? COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what I heard. MS. FLAGG: Let me just -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Hang on one second. Board, right, is that what I heard? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I heard. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And, Mr. Cormac -- or I'm sorry, Cormac, is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Giblin? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I can't say the last name. MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So most, if not all, of these bullet points are, for lack of a better term, built into the system that there will be checks. There will be -- is it quarterly or half -- or yearly -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Annual. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- annual checks to make sure everything is okay, stays with it for 30 years. I'm having a tough time understanding that all these bullet points are not included in, quote, the two -page, we'll call it A and C of this document, where I believe -- and I believe all of us believe they are inclusive, just not on this document. It's included within the PUD in other language, correct? MS. FLAGG: Where in the PUD is it included in other than language? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll -- here's what we're going to do at this point. Ms. Flagg, for the time being, you're excused. Thank you very much. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm going to ask Mr. Yovanovich, unless, Mr. Giblin -- Page 63 of 100 Packet Pg. 67 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MR. GIBLIN: It's yearly monitoring, not quarterly. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Great, thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, I would like you to refer to those bullet points and tell us either are they already in there or shouldn't apply or you don't want to agree to them or won't agree to them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I want to start with the premise that your lawyer -- and I'm not your lawyer. Ms. Ashton and Mr. Perry, your lawyers, have said they're comfortable with the language that exists in the PUD. And Mr. Giblin, who, on an interim basis, is responsible for implementing and making sure the PUD is, in fact, complied with. What's -- what is really telling is -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you put those up for us to see while you're going through them. Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Most of the provisions that she cited up there relate to owner -occupied units. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: This is specifically a rental project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it's clear that they're not applicable. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll work from the bottom up, because that's what I can see. Okay. Process for civil enforcement and criminal enforcement, that's a standard provision of all county ordinances. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: You have an ability to do that. Take me to Code Enforcement -- my client to Code Enforcement if they don't meet the condition. The process for violations, standard. You go to the Code Enforcement Board, or you take me to court for a violation of the ordinance, or my client to the Court. Random inspections to verify occupancy. Annually you come, you verify occupancy. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But not random? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not random, but annually you come in to verify occupancy. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Would you oppose random? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me talk to my client about that. You're asking me to -- I don't want to have that conversation in front of you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is fair. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's kind of like -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Recording the agreement. It's an ordinance that is of record. Every purchaser of property is going to look at the zoning atlas, and the zoning atlas is going to specifically refer to the PUD. Most of my clients will hire me to do a verification, and I'll -- many times I'll have zoning staff give me a zoning verification letter to verify what the zoning is. So it's already covered. It is a covenant running with the land, because it's an ordinance that runs with the land. I could sell it 23 different times, and the 23rd buyer is still responsible for meeting the ordinance. So it's already there. We do not have a ratio of bedrooms. I've told you our reason why we don't want a ratio of bedrooms. I think Mr. Giblin has pointed out you probably don't want a ratio of bedrooms either because there's a need across the board for this type of housing. The document says it's an obligation for 30 years. It's already in the document. We're not selling anything. And you come in and you verify annually, do the people who are renting those units meet the requirements. It's there. It's there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. And the question about random, I'm not sure where the Planning Commission's going to come down on that, but you might have a Page 64 of 100 Packet Pg. 68 April 6, 2023 5.A.a conversation with your client, if you would, please. All right. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Let's see. What was my question. Let's see. I always have a lot of questions. Oh, if I were to order a title search because my client was going to buy this property, we'll say, is that going to show up? MR. YOVANOVICH: The county does not record zoning ordinances in the record of the -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which is why you would be doing this other search for this -- getting this other verification? Because it's a particular kind of property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Everybody's going to go check the zoning atlas to see what it's zoned, and PUDs are specifically cross-referenced. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Got it. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MR. YOVANOVICH: And the reason you put the lien for the for -sale, it's usually less sophisticated buyers for understanding that there's an obligation. When you're talking about a transaction of this -- it's sophisticated buyers that know they've got to go verify what restrictions are out there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you know that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I? Did you have more? MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to go into rebuttal? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, whenever you want me to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, before you go into rebuttal, at this point, without objection, I'm going to close the public comment portion of this hearing. Any comments or questions from the dais before we go into rebuttal? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I still have one pending request for Mr. Yovanovich -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- in his rebuttal, to address the comments he made earlier today about the economic feasibility. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just repeat that for the record. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'll start with that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know we went through a very detailed explanation for two projects, actually -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- not too long ago. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In fact, I think we even got the spreadsheet and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We did. We showed you, you know, what the operating costs are. I verified with my client that even if they gave her the land today, gave her the land today, she can't meet the current matrix requirements for affordable housing. Cost of construction, cost of operation, and a whole lot of other things associated with the project, they can give her the land, and we can't do what they want us to do, which is go to two stories and go down to 10 units or 12 units an acre for the project to work. It doesn't work economically. It's a reality. Mr. Giblin pointed out the reason other projects can do it is they're getting tax subsidies to be able to bring the projects and the rents down. This should a -- this county, for better or for worse, has decided it's going to be -- the fair market system that's going to address this issue. The only way that works is if you can get enough units, generate enough revenue to subsidize the rents or the lost revenue for the project to work; otherwise, you get zero affordable housing. That's very Page 65 of 100 Packet Pg. 69 April 6, 2023 5.A.a simple math. You get zero. And we went through this very detailed explanation of how this actually works. So whether you like it or not, it is an economic issue unless the voters elect to tell their elected officials, come up with money to subsidize operation costs, construction costs, or whatever else it's going to do to bring this down to where you can build less units and still income restrict, but we're not there. Mr. Bosi pointed out that the local government, the county commissioners just transmitted, basically, an amendment that on -- I'll call them the major roads, which Airport Road would qualify as a major road. There's certainly a bus that goes up and down Airport Road. Twenty-five units an acre is what they transmitted. We're in that number. We're in that number net on this one piece. We're in that number. That's the policy, kind of the decision that the Board is leaning to. Is it there yet? No, I wish it was. I wouldn't have to do this amendment. I'm a little ahead. We started this process before the Board of County Commissioners started the process. I don't want to -- I'm going to have Bob come up here and talk a little bit about compatibility in a minute, but when you're looking about the frontage of Airport Road, what fronts on Airport Road, each of these quadrants, although not yet developed, zoned for commercial. Oh, it's not as effective when the screen's not up. This quadrant, commercial, zoned for commercial. Here, zoned for commercial, owned by -- or at least the last I knew it was owned by the Greek church. But before they bought it, zoned for commercial. Zoned -- Italian -American Club, zoned for commercial. Comp Plan designated for commercial. Comp Plan designated for commercial. In for commercial rezone. The county complex, although it's the county complex, it's a commercial complex. It's an office park. This quadrant is a commercial quadrant. Mike took you down -- all the way down the frontage of Airport Road. Higher density apartment complexes, industrial. Airport Road -- the frontage of Airport Road is not low -density residential. It doesn't change what's on -- further back on Orange Blossom Drive. We're not questioning that. But the frontage of where we are is not low -density residential. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, you're moving into your rebuttal, which is fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I thought I was in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, that's fine. I think where we were, you were answering the Vice Chairman's questions. But here's why I'm interrupting is because it's 2:20. At 2:30 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll stop. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- we're going to have a break, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I misunderstood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine. No problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought he wanted me to first address that in my comments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did. MR. YOVANOVICH: I apologize. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm trying to offer you the opportunity, if there's a -- if there's a natural break point in here -- you don't have to finish by 2:30. But if you want to reach a natural break point, we'll take our break early. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do that, and then I'll -- let me finish what I'm saying, take a break, and then Mr. Mulhere come up, and then we'll -- and he may say, Rich, you kind of strayed into some of the stuff I was going to say anyway, and -- MR. MULHERE: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: That may be the case. I look at this and I go, I'm not going to say there's not anybody who's going to get on Airport Road when they've got to get out of this project and do a U-turn to go north. That would be a ridiculous statement to make. There are going to be people who will make a U-turn to go Page 66 of 100 Packet Pg. 70 April 6, 2023 north. My question is, we did a traffic analysis. It's based upon a model specific to -- it applies to Collier County. The number of trips predicted to make the U-turn, go north, and then go west on Orange Blossom during the p.m. peak hour, which is rush hour, to quote one of the speakers, is 18 two-way peak -hour trips. There will be 18 more trips on that road during the p.m. peak hour from these 336 units based upon the model. I don't know why -- and that means people coming home, too. You know, there will be people coming back on Orange Blossom on some of those trips. I don't know why you would do that U-turn to go north. I know some people will. You can get everything else when you want to go south. Publix is to the south. Costco's to the south. Lowe's is to the south. Home Depot is to the south. If you want to go east, you just go down to Airport Road, you head east, and you can fly on -- I'm sorry, Pine Ridge Road. You can fly on Pine Ridge Road going east. There will be some that want to go north to go east, and there will be some that want to go north to go west, and there will be some that want to go north to just go north. But it's not going to affect the level -of -service standards adopted for Collier County. Your transportation staff has already testified to that, and the developer from Massachusetts said you should analyze this on a level -of -service basis, and that's exactly what Collier County staff does. They analyze this on a level -of -service basis. So we meet all the level -of -service standards. I want to -- something that Cormac said that kind of struck me about the reason we do PUDs in Collier County is because you -all like to negotiate and put some safeguards in that you would get from a PUD that you wouldn't otherwise get from straight zoning, and, candidly, Collier County, including the Planning Commission in the past, gets a little uncomfortable when you come in with a petition for straight zoning because you have no input on the master plan. You have no input on the allowed uses. And the couple of times I was foolish enough to try to do straight zoning, I did what was kind of a bastardization of a PUD by doing straight zoning minus. You know, take out uses that we're allowed in straight zoning, and sometimes a prior chairman required us to do some kind of a master plan anyway. So Collier County is set up for PUD zoning and, frankly, I think you like that because you get better protections like 135-foot setback -- or 130-foot setback. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thirty. MR. YOVANOVICH: One -hundred -thirty-foot setback, sorry. So you don't have straight zoning in Collier County; you have PUDs, and for very good reasons, to address these standards. There was someone who said that we only have 102 spots to serve our project. That's 102 spots to help the Carlisle. We have our own spots. We have more than 102 spots. We'll be addressing that. I hear this -- and maybe the woman heard earlier was my comment about we're at a crossroads in Collier County because you're going to see a lot of projects with high density to come in and do these types of projects. You are. And we're going to be around neighborhoods, and neighborhoods are pushing back. They're pushing back on density because of traffic and other things. I didn't say anything about affordable housing, but in order to get affordable housing, and maybe this is where she misunderstood what I was saying, is you're going to have to have increased density. This is one of several projects that are coming through the process. They're all around that same density, 20 to 25 units an acre, to get to a sufficient size. I don't know where else you would put it other than on a major road like Airport Road that does have bus stops on it and transit, is near employment opportunities, is on a road that can handle the additional traffic based on the county's adopted level of service. And you don't have to believe me, you don't have to believe Norm, but your own independent staff has reviewed it and said that's true; there's adequate capacity on all the roads that are impacted by this project. I'm going to take -- one more comment, and then I'm going to give it over to Bob after the Page 67 of 100 Packet Pg. 71 April 6, 2023 5.A.a break to go into a little bit more on the compatibility. But this project is a good project. It's a proven developer in Collier County. Briarwood, the project they did on Briarwood. I'm going to go to the list real quick of the projects. The Briarwood project is at the corner of Livingston Road and Radio Road. It's within the Briarwood community. That's a residential community, four-story product, 22.7 units per acre, high end, well run, well maintained. It is also on a major thoroughfare, but I would say it's in more of a residential area than what we're proposing today. And with that, I'll take the break, let Bob come in, and then we'll answer any other questions you may have in our final summarization. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. We stand in recess until 2:37. (A brief recess was had from 2:27 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, we have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we have a quorum. Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Mr. Mulhere, you have the -- we're coming to order here. Mr. Mulhere, you have the floor. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I want to talk just a little bit about compatibility, because it always comes up. And for those of you that have been on the Planning Commission for some time, you know many petitions come in, and compatibility is always discussed. And it should be. It's referenced in the LDC as a matter for your consideration. And I don't know if Mr. Schumacher knows, but it is defined in the LDC. And I would say it's a somewhat subjective definition, which leads to the argument on either side of the issue. But here is what it says: Compatibility is a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. So we look at the neighborhood that Rich explained so well just a minute ago and previously, and we see that this parcel is adjacent to multifamily, where the multifamily is. Multifamily adjacent to multifamily is inherently compatible. Residential adjacent to residential is also compatible, but you may need to adopt some standards, some development standards that minimize the impact of multifamily on residential, hence the 130-foot setback from the single-family to our west, in which the two closest residents have provided a letter of no objection. To the north you have Orange Blossom Drive and the county facilities; to the east you have a major arterial roadway; to the north [sic] you have commercial. So this idea that we're looking at this entire neighborhood from a compatibility and that a multifamily project is incompatible with this entire neighborhood is simply not correct. This use is compatible in this location, and it meets a critical need as we've offered it to you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Mulhere? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to take a lesson from Mr. Mulhere and be brief. Again, all the -- all your county staff, all your county experts have reviewed this and are recommending approval. We're asking you to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners, both the small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment and the PUD, and with that, if there's any further questions of me, Bob, or anybody else on our team, we're happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Regarding that "random," the ability for it to not just be annual. Page 68 of 100 Packet Pg. 72 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I forgot to ask. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is that a -- I guess the issue is that, you know, if an issue -- if there's some concern, then, you know, like, let's say, you know, we have the annual -- the annual report is, you know, in December, and then there's a concern in February, then we would have to wait until December to try to, you know, address the concern. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. Again, if it's okay, if we could have three business days' notice, that would be fine. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That would be fine for me. I'm the only one who seems to be concerned about it. MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's something that the Planning Commission needs and thinks is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was going to bring up the same thing, because random assumes that I can go out there tomorrow and knock on the door, and that's not the purpose of these. When we talk about a random inspection -- when we talk about an inspection that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Inspection. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- a notice to the property owner, the manager, that we're coming out to inspect your records. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would be happy with -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The people that rent the units have a right to privacy and -- unless they consent to allow someone to come in, but there has to be some kind of a time frame. I believe there has to be a time frame that would allow anybody to come into a rental. I'm renting a unit. I'm entitled to a right of privacy. That inspection includes just the records, or does it include a walk through the entire facility? MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, you're there to verify that the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Verify that the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- apartments are being rented to people who meet the income categories. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which would largely be records. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would be happy with a month notice. I mean, the idea is that there isn't -- we don't have to wait, you know, for months and months to cycle through -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would propose, at minimum, a week notice. I mean, three days -- but seven days is fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know your goal. I'm assuming at some point you're going to get comfortable that you've done enough inspections that you don't have to come more than annually, but you want to have the right; I get it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I would -- you know, I guess I would say that I'm going to consider that as an amendment -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- to what's being proposed when we finally get the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The two commissioners are looking at seven. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Seven. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else? Was that -- that was your comment? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, do you have anything further? Page 69 of 100 Packet Pg. 73 April 6, 2023 MR. YOVANOVICH: We're just here to answer questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. No one is signaling at this time. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Any idea on what the percentage of your mix is going to be on your three-, twos-, and ones-? CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's something actually in the material. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Is there? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I don't remember what it was. MR. YOVANOVICH: Currently, the anticipated mix is 45 percent ones-, 45 percent twos-, 10 percent threes-. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. No one is signaling at this time, and it would be appropriate for us to call on Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, are we going into discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you wanted to call somebody up. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Call somebody up. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I wanted to get Mike to come up here and talk a little bit about the right -only entrance with the additional traffic, because we've heard a lot of concern raised by the public about the right turn only, and I think he has some information that might help us a little bit in the decision -making prospect -- process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Sawyer, you're on, sir. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. Yeah. What we're talking about is the right -out that is being proposed. Earlier in the layout of the project, it was actually further to the north. It was actually pushed to the south so that the weave movement -- and when we talk weave movement, it means you're going from one side of the roadway to the other in order to get into a turn lane. So in this case, what we're doing is we're exiting out, we're making a right-hand turn to go south on Airport, we'll be going over each of the lanes over to a turn lane that currently exists. The reason that we pushed it further to the south was the intention is to actually have that U-turn movement happen in front of the Hyundai dealership instead of towards the north, which is the next furthest -- you know, the next, you know, U-turn opportunity, which would have been conflicting with the neighborhood to -- on the east side. Part of the reason is that by doing that, it's not as much of a conflict with the Hyundai dealership, because the Hyundai dealership doesn't have as much traffic coming out p.m. peak. It's more of an off-peak situation that we would have between the residential and the car dealership. So that's part of the reason that that was done. Keep in mind, when this project comes in, there will be a new TIS done at that time, and it will include all of the operational aspects that the project is going to impact for the SDP, the plat, and the right-of-way permit. So all of those are going to be reviewed all over again in much more detail by staff. The likelihood is that that turn lane in front of the Hyundai dealership is probably going to need to get extended so we've got more stacking on it. But, again, that's going to be all looked at as far as the number of trips that are going to be generated and how long that actual turn lane is going to need to be done according to, you know, the impacts of what's already out there as well as the added trips with the -- with the project itself. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask you a -- MR. SAWYER: Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- along that same line before you go to the -- Page 70 of 100 Packet Pg. 74 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MR. SAWYER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If I'm coming north on Airport, how do I get into the development? MR. SAWYER: You will be using the existing Carlisle access that already exists. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Island break, yeah. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Go ahead with -- thank you. MR. SAWYER: Similar to Cormac --I'm sure I didn't do as great a job as he did, but I've been taking notes as well. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's because you're not Interim. MR. SAWYER: Exactly. I'm just a lowly reviewer, guys. That's all I'm here for. Keep in mind a couple of things. We've already talked about the weave movement, so I think we've got that pretty well nailed down. There was mention of Orange Blossom and the cut -through issue, and this comes up in a lot of projects where a new development comes in and there is a concern that secondary roads will sometimes have additional cut -through traffic. The TIS in this case is showing that it's about four, five percent that is going to be impacting Orange Blossom. And, again, that is constrained by policy. We cannot do anything as far as increasing Orange Blossom. The only people that can do that is if the Board revisits it and decides that something else has to happen in the future. We have also done several studies to also look at cut -through traffic on other projects, other areas of the county. Basically, we've had two actual studies that we've done, and then we had a recent demonstration. What we're finding is that cut -through traffic is approximately 4 percent -- 4 to 5 percent in most situations. Most people are going to continue going on the road that they're into an intersection and make the turn instead of using cut-throughs. So l'm just -- I'm just putting that out just as kind of a general rule for you. We did, in fact, look at crash data. The crash data in this particular area indicates that in the five-year period starting in, I believe, January of 2018 running to the end of'22 -- so basically five years -- there were approximately 178 incidences. That's all kinds of incidences. Approximately -- over half of those were property damage, which means all kinds of property. Basically it means vehicle to vehicle. So there weren't any injuries, sorry. There was one fatality, and that occurred back in 2018. We're basically averaging somewhere around just under three incidences per month. Ninety percent are attributed to speed, and the other 90 percent, another 90 percent were for rear -end incidences. So in an area like this, that's not unusual, quite honestly. Other than that, we do have some improvements within the area, within the network area in the five-year planning window. Keep that in mind. We are doing improvements on Airport. There's also improvements on Goodlette. And we are currently working on improvements on Pine Woods -- Pine Ridge itself. So, again, you start looking at the network, you relieve one area, and that tends to put relief into other areas as well. Otherwise, I'm here for any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I'm going to ask Mr. Mulhere to return to the podium, if I may, for a compliment and also then to put him on the spot. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The compliment is I thought you did a very good job at the NIM pretesting the microphones and the other technology and assuring that all comments were mic'ed and that people identified themselves. So I just want to thank you personally for that. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. That's a job, but thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Get that gavel out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. So thank you for that. Now, it was probably just an inadvertent misstatement, but I wanted to clarify it. In the Page 71 of 100 Packet Pg. 75 April 6, 2023 NIM at 5 minutes and 30 seconds in, you made a statement that the traffic -- peak p.m. was 319 two-way peak p.m. trips rather than 343. Was that just a misstatement, or did the number change for some reason? MR. MULHERE: That would have been a mistake. Norm just told me I made a mistake. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Planning commissioners? Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I mean, since we're going into discussion -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- I'll be the first to bite the bullet here. First of all, I want to say thanks to the public that attended. There were very well -thought-out comments. In fact, I follow what Paul said, well thought out, well presented, and certainly items to consider. Now the bad point. The bad is I simply cannot find a way to vote against this. It is in compliance with all the rules and criteria. It's -- the density is what the density, frankly, has to be to provide a much -needed service to this county, and that's affordable housing. Staff has approved this. They validated that from all essential public services, everything is available to support it. Other than the amendment for seven days, I would -- I'm going to make a recommendation that both the Growth Management Plan amendment, Airport Carlisle Subdistrict, and the accompanying Haven of North Naples MPUD, I recommend approval subject to the one amendment in regards to the seven days for the inspection. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Seven-day pre -notice. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Pre -notice for the compliance inspection for affordable housing. MR. BOSI: And maybe the Chair's probably already taken notes, but we did have a note that the 130-foot setback on the western portion of the project was going to be designated within the development table as well as adding emergency access to the developer's commitment statement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Let me see if I can cover those. I did have -- I did have a list, and I want to be sure, and then I'll ask if you accept a friendly amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I tried to keep track of it on my computer as we were going, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: No problem. It might take me just a little bit of time here, but I'll get to it. So the commitment of 130-foot setback on the west side of Tract B, that was the first one. And my preference -- because -- just because I think it's easier, just throw these into developer commitments. But as long as it's text in the ordinance or an exhibit to the ordinance, I don't much care where it is, but it seems to me that that's where it ought to go. Then the emergency -only exit on the south side for emergency vehicles only. Let's see. Four stories in height. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Much of those were already specified, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: And -- let me be sure I got them all. And the random seven business days' notice. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I will amend my motion based on those issues that you brought up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. At this time it would be appropriate to have further discussion from the Planning Commission if desired. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So, you know, it's always a difficult situation when you're trying to balance community benefit versus local community impact. I probably sit more on the other side of this. I'm a champion of affordable housing. I don't really view this as an activity center like I would Logan Square and that, and I don't see it even close to it. It might get there, but it's not there yet. Page 72 of 100 Packet Pg. 76 April 6, 2023 My gut feeling is that -- and I'm very worried about that traffic. I understand what Mike's saying. I think it's a little too dense, and I think it's a little too tall. And I think it's not quite the same as the rest of the neighborhood, and I think we're giving up too much for 76 affordable housing units, personally. So I'm going to vote against it as it stands right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I just wanted to thank -- ma'am, I can't recall your name, but I want to thank you for bringing up those issues because, clearly, they animated me to want to know more. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, you mean Diane Flagg. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, Diane, yeah, Ms. Flagg. I appreciate that because you all saw that we really wanted to have a discussion about those issues, because they're all important. And I appreciate that. And I do appreciate everyone. You know, most of the people are gone but, like I said, I've been in the seats as a resident who was here, and I appreciate that everyone is concerned about their community and that you raised your concerns, you know, to the -- to your government. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I share the same sentiment. I can't -- I can't find myself getting behind this at this point based on the density that we're seeing for only the amount of units for affordable housing. I think that it has to be highlighted the number of residents. And those that came forward, not only here today but also through their petitions and through that Orange Blossom Alliance, which has to be recognized. I mean, those residents are coming forward with their concerns. I understand the traffic side. I understand all of that. But, again, I have to go back to this density, the height, and the lack -- that we're not achieving a full amount of affordable housing that we possibly could. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Any further comments before we vote on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's been moved. Was it seconded? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. All those in favor of the recommendation on the Land Development Code -- excuse me, on the PUDZ and on the small-scale Growth Management Plan? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Actually, if there's opposition, we probably should vote on the small-scale first, because that makes the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- PUD amendment moot unless we can vote on both of them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I made a motion for both, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, let's -- unless anybody wants to bifurcate these, we'll vote on them together. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Obviously, if the GMPA doesn't pass, then the other one becomes moot. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of the joint motion with the conditions that I announced, please say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. Page 73 of 100 Packet Pg. 77 April 6, 2023 5.A.a COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes 4-2. Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm pretty sure this was part of the record, but remember I showed you the slight modification to the affordable housing? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The red line. MR. BOSI: It was the elimination of the for -sale units on Point C of the proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure the motion maker meant that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. For the record, I considered that because it was already discussed and taken out. So, yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the record, can we get the reasons for the denials? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That's a -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I gave it to you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was all stated. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, you did? Okay. Then we'll get it from the minutes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Actually, I think there's sufficient material in the record, both negative votes. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Thank you, Planning Commission. We'll move right into the next matter. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I will need to leave at 3:15. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I as well, Chair. I apologize. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Three. That's going to leave us with -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm going to stay. I put it off my -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll be -- we'll be a group of four, which is enough. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if the other two are going to leave, my concern is on this -- we can always address the others. And I'm sorry, but the issue -- if the people are going to leave, do they have any concerns about this issue with the neighborhood information meetings? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we can simply continue that right now if we want to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because I'm going to miss the next two meetings, and I really have some concerns with the way the language is written. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I do, too, and I've talked to staff about that. And I think I've got -- I think I've got an understanding with staff for changing some of the language. But it's important. And let me ask Mr. Bosi, what harm would be done by postponing this until the third meeting -- third meeting from now? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Based on some case law that has come out in the past couple months, any items that are continued will be readvertised and rescheduled as early as possible. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. This is -- we're just talking about the rules of decorum right now. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's not an LDC amendment. This was nothing -- are we voting for the amendment in this or just to discuss? MR. BOSI: No, it is -- it's making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, it's making a recommendation to the Board. Page 74 of 100 Packet Pg. 78 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MR. BOSI: We would have to readvertise it right now on the 5/18, which would be -- that's two out. Are you missing the next three? CHAIRMAN FRYER: He's going to miss the next two, so I wanted to put it for the -- MR. BOSI: So 5/18 is the next -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- one after that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Works for me. MR. BOSI: -- which you would be, we have only two petitions scheduled, and the advertising deadline is not until April 18th, so we could make the advertising deadline if we do push the NIM. And the Board of County Commissioners haven't expressed a need to have this -- the NIM modifications with an urgency. So I think we could push it back for another -- a month, month and a half and satisfy what we're trying to accomplish. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. I don't think we'd reach it anyway, but at least we now got it to a date certain that works with your schedule. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's an important issue. And I can share with my colleagues on the Board the whole history of that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was involved in its inception, and I think some of the language, without discussing it now, I think it's a bit punitive on the presenter, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That's what we'll do. That will be continued until what date? MR. BOSI: 5/18. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 5/18. MR. BOSI: And we will readvertise. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Readvertise. All right. Thank you. ***Now, believe it or not, it's only our second hearing today. It is on Application No. PL20220006374, the Collier Boulevard Mixed -Use Commerce Center MPUDA. 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 disclosure starting with Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record plus meeting with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only thing I have is reading the staff materials. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Staff material and meeting with staff. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff material only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Emblidge, you have the floor. MS. EMBLIDGE: Thank you and good afternoon. I'm sure you're a little worn out from the previous item. This should be rather quick and easy. This is an amendment to the Collier Boulevard Mixed -Use Commerce Center, specifically the residential portion, which is known as Magnolia Pond. The applicant is the Richman Group, and I do believe that they're going to be by phone, if there's any questions for them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: I wanted to highlight the location of this project and specifically point out that this petition is specifically for Phase 2 of the Magnolia Pond residential area. And, as you can see on this exhibit, their surrounding uses include the Golden Gate High School, Mike Davis Elementary School, we have Noah's Landing across the street, Golden Gate Commerce Park. And on the other portion of this PUD, Collier Boulevard Mixed -Use Commerce Center, this is the area that is currently approved for the commercial aspects of it. My understanding is there's a petition Page 75 of 100 Packet Pg. 79 April 6, 2023 in for an amendment on this portion of the property that you'll be seeing in the near future. As I mentioned, this is a subset of the Collier Boulevard Mixed -Use Commerce Center that was approved in 2001 with a minor amendment in 2019. The Magnolia Pond residential area's approved for 433 dwelling units on 43 acres. The Phase 1 -- oh, I'm sorry. Let me back up. Magnolia Pond has been approved for a Site Development Plan for two phases of development. Phase 1 includes 324 apartment homes and nine three-story buildings. It also includes a clubhouse and amenity center. Phase 2, which is the subject of this petition, is currently approved for 108 apartment homes in three three-story buildings. The amendment would allow an increase in building height for Phase 2 only from 35 feet to 50 feet with an actual height of potentially 58 feet. And, again, this would only apply to two four-story buildings. These two four-story buildings would replace the three buildings that are currently approved on the Site Development Plan, and there will be no increase in the number of dwelling units. This exhibit shows the Site Development Plan that's been approved by the county, and the -- my cursor is over the area of the Phase 2, and this aerial, I think, is very helpful when you consider potential visual impacts. I'm good. I think they're seeing my cursor, right? Okay. Thank you, though. So Phase 2, as I mentioned, we're proposing to go up to four stories. This area is surrounded by preserve on the west, south, and across the street as part of the Noah's Landing project. There is a preserve area here. And in addition to that, there will be a Type D buffer along the right-of-way. And with that said, it's our opinion that the visual impacts would be mitigated by those elements that I just described. And here we are. Questions? (Commissioner Klucik has left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is signaling yet, so I'm going to jump in. I didn't see anywhere in this material that there is an explicit limitation on this tract to two buildings only. And I'm not even going to ask you to limit yourself to two buildings, but I'm going to ask if you would accept a condition that no matter how many buildings you build on this, only two could go up to 58 actual. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes, sir. That is what the intent is is that the increased height request is only for two buildings that will be constructed in Phase 2. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. But down the road there could be more buildings constructed. And my point is is if they want to go to greater height on those, they would have to come back here. MS. EMBLIDGE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you'd accept 58 feet actual for only two -- for two at most on that site? MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anybody else have comments or questions for the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only question is, Margaret, we're going to see an amendment in the future for the next piece of property? I was just -- out of the sheer interest -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that's coming in for a rezoning? It's zoned commercial now? MS. EMBLIDGE: It's owned by another company. It's not -- the Richman Company is -- or Richman Group, excuse me, owns only the residential portion of this PUD. There's another owner for the other parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because that area, for my colleagues, as Mike Sawyer probably can allude, the intersection of 75 and Collier is going to be a major, major construction Page 76 of 100 Packet Pg. 80 April 6, 2023 5.A.a effort there with the big cloverleaf. In fact, I sort of kind of believe that the cloverleaf is just going to obscure these buildings. I mean, they're not going to be seen from much of anywhere. And across the street from there is the -- just a storage area? Is that the storage area across the street? MS. EMBLIDGE: Which way across the street? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, no, that's right. You've got the commercial. Then across the street from the commercial. Yeah, okay. And next, going west is the school, on the western portion of the property. Northwest, yeah. MS. EMBLIDGE: Northwest. Because immediately west is the preserve area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Preserve area. MS. EMBLIDGE: That's part of this project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further questions or comments of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, no issues. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: On an ancillary note, just because we came through of six hours talking about affordable housing -- I know this has nothing to do with your request -- is there any affordable housing within Magnolia Pond? MS. EMBLIDGE: No. These are all going to be market -rate apartments. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Even in Phase 2? MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else? Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm sorry. I know I'm treading light on time, but going off of that, is there a possibility of adding in some affordable housing into this? MS. EMBLIDGE: I would have to -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No? MS. EMBLIDGE: -- consult with my client and -- but it's not part of the proposal. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So your density is the same, basically. The only thing you're doing -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- is kind of stacking it up more. MS. EMBLIDGE: We're consolidating the three buildings that were originally shown on the Site Development Plan into two buildings that would go up to a height of, maximum, the actual 58 as opposed to the 35 feet that's currently approved. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So why don't you put another tall building up, and we'll call affordable housing for that extra building? MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin, interim Economic Development and Housing director. On the visualizer, the aerial that she showed showed Noah's Landing apartments right across the street. That's 264 units of all affordable housing 100 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the other side -- Cormac, on the other -- south of that, of the interchange, isn't that -- on Radio Road isn't that -- half of that affordable housing as well? I can't remember -- there was an affordable housing density bonus for a couple of apartment areas back there. MR. GIBLIN: There's a Habitat for Humanity community right in that area behind the Walmart. So there are a few right in that general area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought. MR. GIBLIN: But, specifically, in Magnolia Pond, there's 264. MS. EMBLIDGE: They're across the street from us. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: But those are at 100 percent occupancy, correct? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. And to add to that, if I may, that Habitat for Humanity owns the Page 77 of 100 Packet Pg. 81 April 6, 2023 property that's to the west of this project and also a parcel that's north and west some as well. So, obviously, there's additional opportunities that will come along for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further, Ms. Emblidge? MS. EMBLIDGE: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm presenting this petition for Eric Ortman. This petition has been found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The development standards increasing the building height, it doesn't impact compatibility with the surrounding properties, and staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for staff or comments from the Planning Commssion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, Mr. Youngblood, public comments. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I have one public speaker, Mr. Chairman, online, Shane Laakso. Mr. Laakso, can you hear us, sir? MR. LAAKSO: Yes, I can. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. MR. LAAKSO: This is Shane Laakso with the Richman Group. Just here to answer any questions that you -all have, but it sounds like Margaret has answered everything that you have. But I'm here if I can help. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further public commait? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone in the room who has not registered want to make any public commait, raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we'll close the public commalt segment of this hearing, and at this point it would be incumbent upon us to deliberate and vote. Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I make a motion we approve the petition as submitted and recommended by county staff. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And may I ask for a friendly amendment of both of you that the 58 actual height would only apply to two buildings on that site? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that okay with the seconder? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And it's already been stated it's okay with the applicant. So without -- any further discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Passes 5-0. Thank you, ma'am. MS. EMBLIDGE: Thank you. Page 78 of 100 Packet Pg. 82 April 6, 2023 5.A.a COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I apologize, gentlemen. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's okay. (Commissioner Schumacher is leaving the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***Thirdly today is our hearing of PL20210001435. It's the Williams Farm RPUDZ. 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. Planning Commission, please, ex parte disclosures starting with the secretary. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public materials and meeting with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sir, you may proceed. MR. DeLISI: Thank you. For the record, my name is Dan DeLisi. I'm a land -use planner representing the applicant, which is Williams Farm. This is called the Williams Farm PUD. I will go through, and in following Margaret's lead, I'm just going to do a brief presentation. This should be a fairly straightforward case. The property is located along the south side of Lake Trafford Road. You can see on the aerial here where it's located. You can see Arrowhead Reserve is just on our east side. You can see Lake Trafford over here to our west, Lake Trafford Elementary School is to our north, and 29 is over here. Camp Keais Strand is a notable environrnental feature that's on the south side, and I will say that the Williams family, their ranch property extends over Camp Keais Strand and farther south to the south side of Camp Keais Strand. But this property that we're rezoning now is just to take these northern two parcels that are mostly on the north side of Camp Keais Strand and rezone them only at this point in time. When I get to the Master Concept Plan, you'll see there is an access for potential future development down the line located right here where you could see there's already a crossing of Camp Keais Strand. But, again, nothing is being proposed south of there at this point in time. Crossing the Strand is a very complex thing that we just don't want to get into now from a development standpoint. This is the Future Land Use Map out of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. We are consistent with this land -use map. We are in the low -density residential fixture land -use category that is this lighter yellow color. Right here is medium density residential, but everything around us other than that is in the low -density category. You know, this is commercial mixed -use on the north side of Lake Trafford Road. The low -density residential land -use category allows for up to four units an acre. You can get up to eight with bonus densities. We're not asking for bonus densities. We are asking for two -units -an -acre single-family development. This is the Master Concept Plan. Again, you see all the preservation area on the south side where the bulk of the Strand is. Two units an acre, 168 acres, so 336 units. We have on -site amenities. Preservation of the Strand, as I was talking about. Just to note, the preservation requirement for this property, as noted in the staff report, is 55.87 acres. What we are proposing to preserve is 70.68 acres. So we are well in excess of the preservation requirement on site for this planned development. Just briefly on stormwater, I only bring this up because we are near the Strand or on the north side of it. We do have the water -quality lake right in the middle and some water management areas as well. Everything is going to be discharging into the water -quality lake, and Page 79 of 100 Packet Pg. 83 April 6, 2023 5.A.a from there it would be discharged south. So we are providing water -quality prior to discharge into Camp Keais Strand. And then as the staff report went through, I don't want to go through all of these criteria for approval, but we do meet the criteria of approval in LDC Section 10.02.13. We are surrounded by residential uses. We are compatible with the surrounding area. I will note that as part of this application, because we are in the Immokalee CRA area, we met with the CRA. They were very favorable towards this project, and they gave us a positive review. And so with that, I will answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Dan, just to highlight, there are three deviations. I think the most significant deviation is the continuity of preserves, but it was approved, and I think it was a great idea. Deviation 3, preserve areas interconnected with the site adjoining the off -site preserves and the wildlife corridors. So that was a deviation. Typically, we do not split the preserve areas, but in this case it made absolute sense, and it was approved by staff, and I just want to make sure that that's noted on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not only will it be noted on the record, but it does require us to vote as an EAC as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't think we have an EAC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, it did meet. Thank you. I just wanted -- I had to check that, yes. We have to vote as an EAC. Thank you. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. If you could back up to the map, please, sir. Thank you. When you're speaking about the water storage area, if I heard you correctly, you said before it is discharged south to the Strand. Is that water used for irrigation, non -potable? MR. EVANS: Hello. Josh Evans, for the record. Yes, that same water will be used for irrigation from the lake, but we'll actually have a well also that recharges the lake, one for one, for the water that goes out. So there will be a well that discharges at the same rate into the lake, but they mix, and then that water's pumped out for irrigation. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Would there be much water, then, leaving the retention ponds going into the preserve -- MR. EVANS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- if it's balancing? MR. EVANS: Well, it wouldn't balance. It balances one for one on the amount of irrigation that comes out. But when you have a storm event, that water, once it hits a certain elevation, it would discharge -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So it goes to a weir, or whatever, and then passes through. MR. EVANS: Yes. In this case we'd probably do a spreader swale to spread the water out so it introduces the slough in a more natural way. But, yes, it would have a weir before that, though. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you very much. MR. EVANS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for the record again that it's so noted, this is in the consultation area for both -- the bonneted bat, which the State of Florida had one consolidated study being done for most of this part of Florida for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and it Page 80 of 100 Packet Pg. 84 April 6, 2023 5.A.a also probably will require consultation for panther mitigation and panther habitat impacts. But you will go through the permitting process for that through consultation. You may have to pay what they call panther habitat units, PHUs, for any potential impact. I wanted to make sure, for the record, that that's so noted from an EAC standpoint. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Anything further from the applicant? MR. DeLISI: No, not at this time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Staff? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Staff has reviewed this for consistency with the GMP and the LDC. We recognize that they're leaving -- you know, they're entitled to four units an acre with up to eight with some density bonus. They're only asking for two. It's a single-family development typical within this area. The one issue that does require the EAC vote is the splitting of the preserve but, as Joe said, we think it's more than appropriate. We've reviewed it, reviewed it from the rezone findings, from the PUD findings, and a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Youngblood, any registered speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anybody in the room who hasn't registered but, nonetheless, would like to be heard on this, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no raised hands, we will close the public comment portion of this hearing, and it now comes into the hands of the Planning Commission for deliberation and action. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd make a recommendation of approval based on the -- it will be both -- a recommendation of approval for both the PUD amendment and, serving as the EAC, will make a motion as well that this be approved as us serving as part of the Environmental Advisory Council. With these two, I'd make a recommendation of a proposal to approve the Williams Farms PUD -- PUDZ. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes 4-nothing. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm glad you guys stood around all morning here. It's just billable hours for the -- MR. DeLISI: You guys should be thanked. CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***Our final rezone hearing today, I guess our final hearing, is on PL2021000349. This is the Plantation PUDA. 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. Ms. Emblidge. Page 81 of 100 Packet Pg. 85 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. Thank you. Again, for the record, Margaret Emblidge with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. I'm representing the applicant/owner, Karli Kajy, who's here today. And this -- as you know, there's an amendment to the Plantation PUD. We are simply asking for an additional residential unit to be able to develop on Tract C a residence that was -- and let me backup. This area that is highlighted on this slide, this is the parcel that's the subject of this amendment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to have to interrupt you, because I skipped a beat. We need to have ex parte disclosures starting with the secretary. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public record. Discussion with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Please proceed. MS. EMBLIDGE: That's okay. I got off kilter here myself. Anyway, I wanted to highlight that this is the property that is being proposed for a single-family residence. The property was -- is .74 acres, and it is known as Tract C. The original approvals for Tract C and the adjacent tract, which is Tract D, was for recreational use. The increase in the number of residential units would be one unit, going from 418 to 419, as noted in Section 3.07 of the PUD ordinance. This would also require revising the project summary in the -- on the Master Concept Plan to reflect the changes. And here is a snippet of the project summary that shows that the residential acreage would be going from 51.8 to 52.54 acres, you know, basically adding .74 acres. The recreation area would go down by .74 acres to 2.16, and then the total number of units going from 418 to 419. And, again, I want to highlight that this is only for this tract here that we've pointed out as the subject property, and Tract D that I mentioned previously is this area immediately east of Tract C that is where the residential -- I'm sorry -- recreational uses are located. To give a little background, this project was originally approved in'84 with an amendment in'89. The plat was approved in 1998 as well, and this is where the subject property was separated from the recreation area. The subject property was labeled as Tract C, and the recreation area labeled Tract E. I know I'm being repetitive, but it's really important to understand the transition of this property from the original approval. The HOA documents that were approved in 1989 also designated Tract D as recreation and did not designate Tract C as recreation. So Tract C was subsequently sold by the developer with no requirement that the parcel be for recreation. The water management permit was approved in 1988 and received compliance certifications in 1988, 1990, and 1996. This slide shows the 1984 Master Concept Plan that shows some recreation elements on both what is the Tract C and D. 1989 Master Concept Plan took out that detail but still designated this parcel as recreation. And then here we are with the Water Management District permit that shows this area as recreation. So just to note here that the Water Management District permit permitted this entire area, being Tract C and Tract D, for development. And then here is the 1989 plat, and this is where I had mentioned that here's Tract C, the subject property, where it was separated from Tract -- the Tract D, being the recreation area. And then here is an illustrative of a single-family residence that could be located on this property and where it would -- it would meet all required setbacks. It would comply with any of the existing easements. Also of note is this area here, which is a former parking lot that was used for the sales center, which is no longer there, and this will have to be removed when development occurs, or the single-family residence pursues a building permit. Page 82 of 100 Packet Pg. 86 April 6, 2023 5.A.a What I wanted to -- let me go to here. The main concerns that came out of this project were -- was drainage. County staff and the residents of Plantation community expressed concerns over the stormwater management system and the flooding that they've experienced. The water management permit included the subject property in the permitted development area, and changing this parcel from developing a recreation facility to a single-family home does not create additional impacts to the stormwater system; however, the applicant has agreed to staff s recommended condition to be included, which is in Section 5.6 of the proposed ordinance. And I'm not going to read the condition, but it's here on the screen, and it's in your staff report and the proposed ordinance. But, again, the applicant has agreed to this condition. And that covers my presentation, but I would like -- would appreciate it that once you hear from the residents, that I have an opportunity to respond. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You will be given that opportunity. Vice Chairman, did you want to be heard? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, are we going to hear from the -- the residents, you said? MS. EMBLIDGE: Well, Karli is here, and only if you have questions that I can't answer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question just out of sheer curiosity. I've been around the county for too many years. The first time I've ever seen a PUD amendment to add one unit. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it just struck me as quite astounding. I only -- the curiosity I have, you bought the property knowing that you'd have to go through this onerous rezoning process? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's exactly where I was going. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, this is not a cheap process. It's a very onerous process. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Meaning, typically, what, 15 months, 15,18 months between the public hearings, the notifications, all the other types of very prescriptive process. MS. EMBLIDGE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I would only -- out of curiosity, did the applicant know when she brought the property that this was not suitable for a residential unit till it went through the rezoning process? MS. EMBLIDGE: I cannot answer that. MS. KAJY: Shall I go up there? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, come on up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's just a personal question. It's just sheer curiosity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the assumption here is -- that was going to be my first question -- I think it was answered -- is that you're an owner, not a contract purchaser. MS. KAJY: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. Answer the Vice Chairman's question, please. MS. KAJY: For the record, Karli Kajy. I'm the applicant. And the answer is, no, I -- was not aware until I decided that I wanted to build, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you -- if I may follow up. Did you give any consideration to getting title insurance? MS. KAJY: At the -- like, originally when I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: When you bought the property. MS. KAJY: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No? That's kind of surprising. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you bought the property? Page 83 of 100 Packet Pg. 87 April 6, 2023 5.A.a MS. KAJY: I didn't buy the property personally. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Your family did? MS. KAJY: Exactly. It was gifted to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. MS. KAJY: I'm a local here in Naples, and I would like to stay here, so that's kind of the idea behind it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I'm just impressed from the standpoint of this is a costly process, but it looks like a wonderful lot. MS. KAJY: Yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And once it's developed -- I mean, how big of a lot is this? MS. KAJY: .74. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's .74 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, it's three-quarters of an acre. I mean, a nice lot. MS. KAJY: Yes, but I don't intend to build something huge or anything. It's going to be single-family, single -story residence. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And we can come over and set up a tent in the back and have a big party? MS. KAJY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just --I don't know. I'm just flabbergasted by the fact that -- but, when did you -- or how did you find out -- did you find out, then go to the county to say I'd like to build here, and all of a sudden you found out that you couldn't. MS. KAJY: Yes, exactly. That's exactly what it was. I had no idea about even the zoning at all. I had -- I had no prior knowledge. This is all new to me, too. I'm learning as I go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, after sitting here all morning, you now have your graduate degree in rezoning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you -- did you take by quitclaim or warranty deed? MS. KAJY: I believe it's warranty deed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Warranty deed. MS. KAJY: Yes. It's warranty. Absolutely, it's warranty deed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How do you pronounce your last name? MS. KAJY: Kajy. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Kajy, okay. That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the fact that you took it by gift goes a long way in explaining how this has come to pass because actually, I mean, it's just almost unheard of anyone would pay new money in order to get a property without title insurance and with a cloud over the title, and that's putting it mildly. But I get it. I see. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I hope you build a wonderful house. MS. KAJY: Yes, me, too. MS. EMBLIDGE: Don't make her feel so bad. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We're trying to make her feel good. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make her feel good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Another question I had, it was mentioned, I think, in the NIM and certainly the pictorial -- pictorial depiction of the house is one story. Is this a commitment that you're making that this would be a one-story property? MS. EMBLIDGE: We weren't planning on making commitments in that detail, and I guess that I would have to ask Karli if she would be interested in committing to a one-story home. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think the concern, as you think about this, is that when you go to a NIM and you present people with a picture of a one-story home, you're coming awfully close to making a commitment. I mean, to the point of if you built something else, an argument could be Page 84 of 100 Packet Pg. 88 April 6, 2023 5.A.a made that you've misled the public. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How many attended the NIM? Anybody? MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes, we had a lot of folks at the NIM. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, really? Oh, okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: While I have you up here and on this subject, with the utmost respect and courtesy to you, Ms. Emblidge, I'm guessing that you did not listen to the NIM transcript, did you? MS. EMBLIDGE: I was at the NIM. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My question is, did you listen to the NIM recording? MS. EMBLIDGE: I started to, and then I quit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I get it now, because the first 20 minutes were mostly audible. The last 20 minutes were mostly inaudible. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, frankly, completely useless. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so that -- you know, that doesn't get us where we want to go. There's a requirement that there be either a NIM transcript or a recording, and I think it's highly implicit in that that it be audible if it's a recording. So I hope that next time you come back you'll have listened to the recording and perhaps even checked it along the way so that you don't have to have a second NIM. MS. EMBLIDGE: Right, and I appreciate that. It was my first NIM, and I had other folks that were helping with the recording and everything. So I think that -- I think we've learned a lot since then. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I hope next time that you're before us that you bring an audible -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- NIM recording. MS. EMBLIDGE: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Anything else from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Let's see. We're at the point of, I guess, hearing from staff? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Staff reviewed for consistency with the GMP and against the PUD amendment criteria. Staff is -- was concerned. The one issue that we did have, I mean, from an overall consistency, adding one additional residence to a 418-unit residential development is not something that we would find incompatible in the least bit, so we had no real compatibility concerns. There was some concerns expressed from our stormwater staff related to the current system. We have asked for a condition of approval, which the applicant has read and agreed to. So with that, staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions from the Planning Commission of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you. Any registered speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have three registered speakers with us in the room. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Ken Meinert will be our first speaker, followed by Paul Clemmensen. Page 85 of 100 Packet Pg. 89 April 6, 2023 5.A.a CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MEINERT: Good afternoon. I'm Ken Meinert. I live in Plantation and lived there for the last 25 years pretty much adjacent to where this proposed building will be. That lot, for the last 25 years, has adequately served as the overflow for the pond that is directly across from it, and that's the only entrance in and out of Plantation. Apparently -- I guess there's a culvert that was built underneath the road that when that pond gets to its overflow, it begins to dump out into that vacant lot. And my concern is a couple things. Well, every year I watch it fill up two or three times a year, and in hurricanes it fills up tremendously. Without that, you're going to get runoff onto the only entrance that we have or the apartments, the Villas of Capri, which are only feet away from the pond. So if that water doesn't have anywhere to go, it's going to go into the apartments, it's going to go into our entrance, or it's going out onto Radio Road. I don't know what can be done, what grading or if they've got contingency plans built in, but that's my only concern at this point is where is that water going to go? I don't want to have -- impede, you know, emergency access. We only have one way in. If it takes out the road, you know, fire, EMS, police, what are you going to do? There's no way back out of Plantation. There's only one way in and one way out, and that's my concern is purely safety at this point and what's going to happen with the water. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MEINERT: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I have just a comment on that, sir, if you could stay up there for a minute, because -- I understand from the water perspective, but from a building perspective when the applicant comes in for a building permit, they're going to be required to construct that home above the current base flood elevation. I have no idea what is out at that area. Maybe Jamie French may know, but they're going to have to probably bring in fill. But the second piece of the Land Development Code and the Building Code is pretty clear, they are not allowed to displace water from their property elsewhere. So I would have to believe at some point that's got to be addressed. But now you just raised a concern about the community in itself. I think the -- a question comes to my mind immediately, if this was, quote, deemed to be a storage area, first of all, it was inappropriate because it was private property, but -- and certainly that would deem to be an encroachment of private property, the community using that as storage and certainly could avail itself to -- the community to a lawsuit. My only question, why didn't the community consider buying this and creating a storage of stormwater area? MR. MEINERT: Well, I couldn't answer that, but I can say probably when this development was first put in and they put a culvert underneath the road, the entrance to it, that dumps out into this lot, they thought about the water. I mean, they probably have, what, a hundred -year rain pond over there that they've allotted for, I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not identified as a stormwater containment area. It would have to be clearly identified as a stormwater -- as a retention -- dry detention area or stormwater retention area. It is not. It is not on the plat. Frankly -- I'm not an attorney, but -- I'm not going to pretend to -- but from my understanding of my days in the building and zoning business, it's the community's problem. They would have to solve that -- the community would have to fix that drainage to preclude water being dumped on the homeowner's property, and it would be the community's responsibility. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. MEINERT: Yeah. All 25 years I watch it fill up. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) Page 86 of 100 Packet Pg. 90 April 6, 2023 5.A.a CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment. Just a moment. I want to remind everyone, please do not talk over one another. And I know you didn't intend to do it, and I want to be respectful to you, but when a planning commissioner's speaking, I ask that public speakers stand down. MR. MEINERT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. So having said that please, go ahead. MR. MEINERT: No. I'm just saying, whether it was ever planned or drawn up that way, I have no idea. I've only been here 25 years. But I can say, as a de facto, a holding area is what it's turned into being. Now, whether or not, like I say, it was ever planned to be that or not, you guys would have to, you know, go back to 1989 or'88 when it was developed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it's not us. It is the community's responsibility. And if that is a -- as you labeled it, a de facto storage area, it was, frankly, illegal. And the property owner would have every right to go back to the community and say fix it, because you're putting water on my privately owned property. The same way when this house is built, it's going to have to be brought up to elevation to base flood -- base flood elevation. And, Jamie, in that area, it's probably, what, six -and -a -half feet now, six feet? Jamie French. Thank you, sir. I'm all done with you for now. MR. MEINERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to have a question for you, so don't go away yet. Mr. French. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I'm just guessing. Probably --it's got to be greater than six feet now over there. MR. FRENCH: I -- just going off the top of my head -- I didn't have a chance to look at the map. For the record, my name's Jamie French. I'm not sworn in, though, Terri. Is that okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. FRENCH: Yes. Thank you. So I believe that one is probably going to be an elevation of around nine. So you'd have a foot of freeboard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. MR. FRENCH: But the issue really is on this, there's no -- as you -- and I appreciate you mentioning the platted area. There's no easements. So there's the defined use on this property. There's no recorded easement to take dry detention or their stormwater. The applicant -- this would all be addressed through the Site Development Plan when they come forward with their design elements to be able to show their site civil work, to show how they're both maintaining their water and how they're putting -- how they're storing their water. Now, if there's a contribution of water, whether or not it's historic flows, that is -- that could be a Code Enforcement Board issue that this property owner or any property owner within that area could make against that community if, in fact, it is the community's obligation to maintain their stormwater. So unless there's easements recorded or an obligation was made by the county or by the HOA, that's who we would have the conversation with. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, just for the applicant's sake, the pervious to impervious is going to be a significant ratio far, far more pervious water and, certainly, the three-quarters of an acre, there's going to be an opportunity for their stormwater to be moved in a direction that won't be impacted. I'm concerned now about what I heard about the community for some presumed reason assumed that this was a storage area which is totally illegal. I mean, that is a violation of this person's property and the -- that would be something that the community would have to rectify so Page 87 of 100 Packet Pg. 91 April 6, 2023 5.A.a they no longer put water onto this -- this piece of property. I just bring that up for the record. MR. FRENCH: As Ms. Ashton pointed out, this would go straight to Permitting. We would review the site plan, but it would not -- because it's a single-family home, it would not require a traditional Site Development Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, it would not. MR. FRENCH: But it would be a consideration that we would look at when we take it through our 800 series type inspections and reviews. But at the end of the day, there's no obligation for this site to take that community's water that we have seen on the plat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Question for you, sir. MR. MEINERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How long has the community been using this lot for storage of water? MR. MEINERT: I moved in 1998 into that community, and I can only attest from that point forward. And it's been there. There's water that builds up in their every year, every summer, and when the hurricanes come, it's worse. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's been in excess of 10 years openly, notoriously, and under claim of right been used as a water storage? MR. MEINERT: It happens. I don't know whether it's been claimed anything or not, but I can tell you it fills with water. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, okay. Now, my other question is Section 5.6 that addresses the drainage concerns, have you familiarized yourself with that, sir? MR. MEINERT: I have not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You haven't. Okay. My question was going to be whether you're satisfied that that adequately addresses the drainage issue. MR. MEINERT: No, I haven't seen that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You haven't seen it, so you can't really testify. MR. MEINERT: I cannot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for you, sir. MR. MEINERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next witness, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be Jay Tanghe, and he will be our final speaker on this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. TANGHE: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. I'll try to make it brief. It's been a long day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: State your name. Okay. Go ahead. MR. TANGHE: My name is Jay Tanghe. I'm the president of the Plantation Homeowners Association of Collier County, Incorporated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Have you seen this Section 5.6 language about drainage? MR. TANGHE: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead. Please proceed. MR. TANGHE: I did send a packet with several photos, and I was wondering if that was available. I had some color photos of the subject property in a packet. And I can start with this just to expedite things. Commissioners, as you are aware, Collier County has strict and precise requirements in place for developers regarding water retention, overflow, egress, et cetera, within developing communities. Plantation subdivision's developers met all the required mandates back in the early '80s when developing our community. The finished product involves a series of retention areas as well as two designated outflow or egress areas designed to allow excess water to flow out onto the Davis Boulevard retention Page 88 of 100 Packet Pg. 92 April 6, 2023 5.A.a system. Unfortunately, as a result of the Calusa Park Elementary School build in 1988, literally, 50 percent of our overflow capabilities were demolished and permanently paved over. At that time our outrage and pleas to county officials fell upon deaf ears, resulting in a severe outflow deficit in our entire subdivision. Our streets and yards suffer extreme flooding during and after every heavy rainfall. Large fish, snakes, and mosquitoes pose constant safety concerns. Within the past few years, it's been taking significantly longer for the overflow water to recede from our roads and yards. Weeks, not days. With the help of Mr. Rick Orth with Collier County Stormwater Management section, as well as Collier County Code Enforcement, we have been able to force the administration of the Enclave development, which is behind us, to perform proper and required maintenance to our only remaining egress route to David Boulevard. We are still trying to determine whether the three massive construction projects on Santa Barbara Boulevard, as well as on Davis, are having any impact on our increasing dilemma. We have informed Ms. Kajy that we are positive that a build on the property in question would definitely further exacerbate our over -increasing flooding issues, as her property is an integral part of our delicate and already compromised drainage system. While she has expressed concern, her most recent correspondence mentions that the county told her that her property and our flooding issues are irrelated. We truly question the source and challenge the validity of that statement. That being said, the Plantation board of directors would definitely be shirking its fiduciary responsibility to our residents of ensuring safety, health, and quiet enjoyment of our community if we approve this request for change. Please let it be clear for the record that Plantation HOA of Collier County, Incorporated, is in adamant opposition of a change in the designation of this property. Oh, there's my photos. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There they are. MR. TANGHE: They look better up there. So we were also -- it was, I guess, 34 years in 1989, our PUD was deemed built out. Now, I'm assuming that as custodians of the PUD, the HOA would also have a role in -- or an opinion, of course, in this matter. I've got 87 single-family homes. I've got 80 backyards that flood like this. And, again, we don't know if there's an issue with the new construction down Davis, Santa Barbara. There's stacks and stacks of apartment buildings being constructed, but we're in trouble, and we'll be in further trouble. Actually, I did not include a photo of the actual culvert that goes under the road. The subject property, if you drive into Plantation, on the right-hand side we have a beautiful lake with a fountain. On the left-hand side, immediate left, is the subject property. Our homes don't start until the other side of Tara Court, which is a little ways down, because we have a clubhouse and subject property recreation area. Then there's a court. That's when our homes start. So the whole layout of the homes in the left-hand side of Plantation Circle, the right-hand side and so on, it's all laid out actually quite beautifully. The subject property would be as you enter our subdivision, boom, there's a house. Talk about, I don't know -- not compliance, but what's the word? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Compatibility. MR. TANGHE: Compatibility, thank you. It just doesn't feel right. But our primary, primary concern is the possible increase in the flooding. The culvert was built under the road at the beginning of the development. How exactly that lot was sold off as private property, it was before my time. One of our original owners, who's the vice president of our board of directors, is at home with a terribly ill wife, so he really wanted to be here. He's kind of our historian and, Page 89 of 100 Packet Pg. 93 April 6, 2023 5.A.a unfortunately, he couldn't. It just couldn't happen today. So that being said, I would appreciate your strong consideration to not approve this change. The community looks nice, floods well, and we'll be in trouble if anything changes. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt -- Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Margaret, do you have the history of when this -- this lot was purchased? I assume it was her family, her parents or grandparents purchased it. MS. EMBLIDGE: There were -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it was legally purchased -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- with the intent that it was going to be developed; is -- MS. EMBLIDGE: That's correct. And what I understand with the history of the purchases is that there was -- there were a couple of times where this was purchased through the Clerk's, what am I trying to -- tax, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Tax sale. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tax sale. MS. EMBLIDGE: Thank you. I -- so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it was legally purchased? MS. EMBLIDGE: It was legally purchased, and as I highlighted in one of my slides, is that the water management permit for this project showed this -- or considered this property as development. It was part of the overall water management, you know, plan that this was going to be developed. The reason why it's filling up with water is because it hasn't been developed, so it's lower than all the other homes and improvements around it that have filled and developed. So I understand that it was originally meant for recreation. It was changed because they did the plat, and it was left as, you know, a property that didn't have -- it was no longer considered for recreation for the community. So that's why we are where we are today and, you know, wanting to -- anyway. Go ahead. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So this -- if it was a tax sale, somebody didn't pay for this, and it ended up being a tax sale through the Clerk's Office. I'm just absolutely astounded from the standpoint we now have the HOA coming up here saying, hey, wait a minute, this is our storage area when, in fact, it's not. MS. EMBLIDGE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And water going onto that piece of property, which is a private property since when? What date was it -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the original purchase? MS. EMBLIDGE: It would have been -- it was owned by the original developer -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. EMBLIDGE: -- once -- when they did the plat, he was the owner of that Tract C. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. But when was it privately purchased? MS. EMBLIDGE: Oh, gosh. I don't know. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: 1996. It was conveyed from East Ridge Partners, LTD, to Carl M. Fernstrum, as trustee of the Tract C Trust. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you for looking that up. Since '96 this has been a private piece of property which, for all intents and purposes -- and I'll be frank -- that the HOA was dumping water on illegally, and that's the term. They were dumping water on their illegally. They had no right to do so. And to presume now -- the HOA president to presume that they have -- since it's been that way, they wanted it to be that way. I Page 90 of 100 Packet Pg. 94 April 6, 2023 5.A.a think in'96 if they wanted it to be a storage area, they had every right to purchase it, or the original developer could have converted it to a storage area. I find it outrageous -- and I'll be frank, I find it outrageous now that the HOA is up here saying we want to deny this because we want it to continue to be storage. I guess from the standpoint, you can offer the current homeowner what I would say is a significant amount of money to purchase it and make it into a storage area. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But I'm concerned that you're -- even with that relief, they're still getting this. They've got a bigger problem than that lot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They have a significant problem than that lot [sic]. Now -- and I understand fully the South Florida Water Management District. For the folks -- I'm a former Army Corps of Engineer guy, former commander, district commander of the Army Corps, I know it well, both that and the South Florida Water Management District. These dates go back 35, 40 years, long before the kind of management we do today in Collier County and the kind of storage and requirements that exist today when you go through an ERP, an Environmental Resource Permit. So this development would never get approved with the current system the way it is now, because it's outdated. But that is the community's problem, not this homeowner's problem. Now, the homeowner will have to deal with its runoff that is created, and that's going to be a simple calculation of pervious versus non -pervious surface. It's a single-family home. And there's nothing incompatible between a single-family home next to a single-family home. And I'm pontificating, because I really find it annoying that somehow we have the presumption that we now have the right to continue to dump water. Well, I would say if the HOA wants that, they can make a nice, tight -- some offer to the homeowner to purchase the piece of property to convert it into a stormwater storage area. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But that's not going to solve their problem. What kind of advice could you give the homeowners association to solve that problem? Is South Florida Water Management somehow in this in the original permitting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They would have to do a complete hydrological study, hire an engineer, do a complete hydrological study, determine the runoff and the shortfalls that exist and either approach the county through a stormwater improvement project or try and do it themselves, because right now they're moving water, as I heard, north to Radio Road. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I would doubt that the county is going to assume some kind of financial responsibility to correct this, either -- but I would have to bring up the names of those in the past, Jamie, who would have some of the history on this. Probably Stan, or --what's the name? My. stormwater guy. I just lost his name. MR. BOSI: Robert Wiley. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: RobertWiley. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But this could just be 45 years of accumulation and blocked pipes. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes, it could. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, it could. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I mean, there's so much investigation somebody needs to do. It wasn't always like this, was it? MR. MEINERT: No, sir, it wasn't. MR. FRENCH: As I would say, Commissioners -- again, for the record, Jamie French. This could lead into a Code Enforcement case. We would investigate it. It may, in fact, require, as Commissioner Schmitt said, most likely contracting an engineer. If there are improvements that would be done, there would be an amendment to their Site Development Plan for this community. They would be subject to any changes and any issued Environmental Resource Permits. If it's under five acres -- I'm unfamiliar with the total site, but I'm going to Page 91 of 100 Packet Pg. 95 April 6, 2023 assume that it's over five acres -- they'd be required to go through the ERP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. MR. FRENCH: And then at which case the Water Management District would look at their outfall, and they would give a prescribed method to how much that they can influence the current systems and what they have to do as a community. Now, this lot is still within the PUD, so the homeowner would most likely be subject to whatever contribution that would be. But at the end of the day, Mr. Schmitt is absolutely correct. And as we see aging systems and systems where the developer has developed and turned over that system, what happens is that the HOAs, they don't always do the best job. Not that they do it on purpose but, clearly, maintenance is something that costs a lot of money, and it's a reoccurring necessity, especially when you get ever -changing floodplain maps because, as Joe has said, the science has changed. We know more about floodplain and floodplain management. And even looking into the future, you know, overseeing our resiliency office here, as we look into the future, it is a great consideration that we give in development, and retaining that water on their site is always the best prescribed method. But, unfortunately, in this particular case, when you've got a development that's already built, what's been permitted, what's not been permitted, we don't know what's been maintained. What's not been maintained we also don't know because we don't have the authority to just go into private communities without being invited or without some form of a court order. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If I could comment, though, on the other comments made by the HOA, if there are other communities placing water into this community, they are, again, legally responsible to prevent that from happening, period. They are not to use your HOA or your property for stormwater runoff. So if you accuse the school or others of putting water into your HOA, I mean, that is something that can be legally rectified, because that -- that is trespassing. It's an encroachment. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You shouldn't have to put up with this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. If we move forward with this, and I hope we do for the young lady's benefit, I'm wondering if there's an amendment or statement we can put in our agreement, our proposal, that takes away any responsibility that this young lady will have on her lot to continue to receive the water, as Joe says -- I want to echo everything Joe has said -- that -- I guess as we've said together, she should not have to put up with. Unfortunately, it's a problem of -- within the entire community. Now, she may be surcharged 1/419th of the cost to fix it, but we have to stop illegal dumping on this lot if this moves forward for an approval, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would have to -- I think it's a little more complicated and I think also beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There are the arguments, I think, that could be made on both sides of this issue having to do with what's called a prescriptive easement. And I'm not going to -- I'm not going to certainly be giving legal advice. But we need to let the chips fall where they may in the event of a private civil action as to who pays for this. Having said that, Mr. French, did you want to be heard? MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. Thank you. Just one more time. I believe -- and to comment on Commissioner Schmitt's comment is that the HOA has already identified that they are working with Code Enforcement on a neighboring lot. With regard to the school district, although they are not subject to local permitting, they are still subject to the Florida Building Code and all other state statutes by private providers, so they would have to demonstrate that, and they do that in-house. With regards to this property -- and I'll allow the petitioner's representation to identify that, Page 92 of 100 Packet Pg. 96 April 6, 2023 5.A.a but I believe it's identified that the petitioner is coming forward, and they're even identifying that they're willing to put an easement in there to allow for drainage to occur. Now, it's all still subject to permitting and design elements, but I believe that the petitioner has already identified that, that she was willing to work with the community on that. But I'll leave that up to Margaret and let her identify that with you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Emblidge. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman Schmitt, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Follow-on question. Who owns the property to the east, the rather large house, two tennis courts? MS. EMBLIDGE: That's the recreation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That is the recreation area? MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. And that, obviously, is owned by the HOA clubhouse. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I would have to believe there's significant runoff from that property as well. I mean, there is -- I look at this, and there is -- there are solutions to this from a standpoint of the property, but it would certainly involve this homeowner as well as in regard to creating some sort of detention area/retention area for a dry storage to accept water. But that would have to be engineered, and that would have to be in -- through the HOA to pursue that. But, yeah, that far exceeds our authority up here. MS. EMBLIDGE: Right. Well, going through this process with the applicant and having a number of discussions with staff and also at the NIM meeting having conversations with the property owners there, it's obvious to me that they've been having stormwater issues for a long time and, as I mentioned earlier, this property -- it's not this property's responsibility to fix those issues. And, as I mentioned, the reason why it retains water is because it hasn't been developed yet. It hasn't had the fill on it like all the other properties that are in the neighborhood. And so just because it's lower means it's going to retain water. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MS. EMBLIDGE: And the applicant has already agreed to this condition that staff has recommended to, basically, come up with an agreement of sorts to -- regarding the stormwater issue. And, you know, quite honestly, the last part of this that says, or the owner will, basically, get an ERP modification, that's not their responsibility to get an ERP modification. It's the HOA's responsibility to pursue any amendments or assessments of their stormwater system. And I'm just going to leave it at that, and I'm open for questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, let's hear from staff. MR. BOSI: Staff has already provided the consistency determination and recommendation of approval upon the proposal. Like I said, it's one additional lot. From a zoning standpoint, it's not an issue. The issue is -- and we've had -- and in your packet -- in your packet the photos that the gentleman -- and your photos are still up here, so don't forget them, sir. They were in your packet towards the back. There was a submittal -- a two -page submittal from Brett Rosenblum, who is one of our licensed engineers on staff, went out there, reviewed against the existing ERP. The existing ERP from the District doesn't designate this area as anything related to the drainage system. But that's what -- the recommendation that we came from was just to recognize the drainage pipe that they do have on the property, provide the easement to the HOA and to the county in recognition of that. But it's nowhere in -- and he hasn't been able to find where that pipe has been approved within the ERP from a county standpoint. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But Section 5.6, the drainage matters, is something that has been Page 93 of 100 Packet Pg. 97 April 6, 2023 5.A.a agreed to between staff and the applicant? MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And staff is satisfied that this would be a reasonably fair equivalent surface -water remediation in comparison to what's going on now? MR. BOSI: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see, have we closed -- I think we did, did we not? Do we have further speakers, Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any other registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anyone in the room want to be heard on this? Okay, sir. You've already been heard, haven't you? MR. TANGHE: Yes, I have. A few brief comments, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: With leave of the Planning Commission, what say, you, Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Let him speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any objections? Come forward, sir. MR. TANGHE: Thank you very much. One of my other concerns -- first of all, as I mentioned earlier, I'm saddened that our original owner, resident, vice president of the Board, historian is not here. He reminded me on a couple occasions that we did attempt on a couple of occasions to purchase that property. One of the things that -- in the correspondence from, I believe, staff to Ms. Emblidge was a Correction Comment No. 1 that said, please provide a letter of no objection from the Plantation Homeowners Association, Incorporated, to the change in designation from recreation area to residential. I'm sorry, but we're not willing to provide that letter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's pretty clear in the record. We've seen your record. MR. TANGHE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're in vehement, I think -- MR. TANGHE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- or maybe adamant opposition, so you're clear on the record where you stand. MR. TANGHE: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anybody else in the room want to be heard on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we'll close the public comment portion of the hearing. And we've got four of us here. We need a vote of four to pass it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a recommendation to approve the PUD amendment as stated with the stipulation as noted in Paragraph 5.6, and that's for the Plantation PUDA. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any fiu ther discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) Page 94 of 100 Packet Pg. 98 April 6, 2023 5.A.a CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously 4-0. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I just offer a comment? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess sitting up here and going through and following the regs, I sometimes feel like, for the communities, they don't know where to go when they have these problems, and I feel inadequate because I don't know what to tell them, how to solve them, but I think, like you're saying, a basic engineering review. I can tell you in our community, which is nowheres near as old as that, we found a lot of flow problems are just clogged pipes from years and years of sediment, from things like that. But I always -- I don't know what to tell them to help them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typical problem here is what -- eutrophication. The ponds have been in for 30 years. They just buildup sediment upon sediment, and they lose their capacity, which requires dredging and maintenance in other areas. That's probably why many of these communities that have CDDs now, they're a taxing authority and they raise taxes to pay for that. That's -- it's part of the H -- O&M that they pay. The older communities, many of them, were built without the CDDs. That's one of the -- truly one of the benefits of being a CDD, because they can raise revenue to do that. The real answer, though, is -- and we've always done this in the past, when I was on the staff, to contact the county engineer and the county stormwater folks. They would gladly come out. I know what they're going to say, though. You're going to have to hire a private engineer to do an evaluation and assessment. But I -- Jamie, we still have staff go out and evaluate these when we get issues, do we not? MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioner. I apologize for waiting to be recognized. But the -- Brett Rosenbaum is one of our county engineers. He's the engineering manager along with Jack McKenna. Brett covers the review of the projects, where Jack really focuses more so on the inspection fieldwork. But, yes, either Brett or Jack are out in that community, mostly Jack, all of the time. So we -- I believe that the -- in this particular case, there was recommendations made. And, quite honestly, Commissioner Shea, a homeowner within their HOA, if they're seeing the flooding, they can report themselves to Code Enforcement, and we'll be happy to open a code case and, under Chapter 162 of the Florida Statute, we have a requirement to serve. So we'd be happy to open a code case on this. All they have to do is call our Code Enforcement office, and they have some -- they have to identify themselves under 162, and we'll be happy to open a case on them. And then if need be, what we do is we go after the HOA or, in this particular case, we would address it with the HOA if it's a community -wide problem. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you understand that? MR. TANGHE: I do. And we've had several -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have to come forward, sir, if you're going to speak. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just don't like loose ends, I'm sorry. MR. TANGHE: I'm sorry. And I do appreciate the opportunity as well. We have had several discussions and meetings with Mr. Rick Orth with the county, and he's identified a few problems where we've been a bit lax. He -- originally, to the best of my knowledge, he originally rejected the request from the applicant. And then he doesn't -- he told me, Jay, I don't know how it's gotten this far, actually. We do have a couple of issues that need improvement, and those are in the works. And, again, when that school was built, they destroyed half of our egress water. And history, perhaps. Water over the damn. Call it that. But we're in trouble. And that's why we've been in real good communication with Mr. Rick Orth with stormwater management. Jamie, I know you know who Rick is, I believe. And he's been amazing. Actually, did -- took time, wrote us a report outlining some of our shortcomings, was on his hands and knees, and he took pictures of the fact that that culvert Page 95 of 100 Packet Pg. 99 April 6, 2023 5.A.a originally built goes from our pond under the road to our recreation area. And, by the way, talk about compatibility, that house is going to just stick out like a sore thumb. When you drive into our beautiful community, we have a lake, and we have a recreation area. The houses don't start until, oh, an eighth of a mile. Anyway, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. TANGHE: Thank you, again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That will conclude our hearing of the Plantation matter. We had asked Mr. -- well, first, is there any old business? I don't believe there is. ***Okay. Under new business, we had asked Mr. Bosi to be prepared to give us, perhaps, a more detailed explanation of the Live Local law. Considering the hour, we may or may not want to postpone that. It's very important information. So I'll ask the Planning Commission, do we want to hear from Mr. Bosi now or put that out to another -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are you just talking about a few --like 10, 15 minutes? Because I'd like to do it. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Ten minutes worth, and then we can do some research before we reconvene. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Perfect. We'd like to hear a little bit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. Mr. Bosi, you're on, sir. MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And we're not going to need a tremendous amount of time. The Chair had provided the highlights, and that's all that this slide is really going to do. There's a lot of uncertainty that's related to this new legislation. It hasn't been codified within statutes yet, but this is -- we know it will become effective in -- July 1 st. How it is going to apply to the county, there's still some discussion that we're going to have to have with our County Attorney's Office and the administration. But, basically, here's the high components of it. It requires counties and municipalities to authorize multifamily and mixed -use residential as allowable uses in any zone -- area zoned commercial or mixed use if at least 40 percent of the residential units in the proposed multifamily rental development are, for a period of at least 30 years, affordable as defined in Section 420 of Florida Statutes which has the allocation for the low, very low, moderate, and then the gap, which is at the 120. So if 40 percent of a multifamily complex is income restricted for 30 years at 120 percent, that's an entitlement that we have no right to deny. It prohibits a county or a municipality from requiring a proposed multifamily development to get a zoning or a land -use change, special exception, conditional use, variance, or GMP amendment for building height, zone, or densities. The height -- or the height of the proposal is related to the fourth bullet point. It prohibits a county or municipality from restricting the height of a proposed development authorized under the subsection below the highest currently allowed height for commercial or residential development in its jurisdiction within one mile of the proposed development, or three stories. Three stories is your base floor. If you're able to find something commercially or residentially zoned higher, that's what you're entitled to. And it prevents a -- and the third bullet point down is the intensity/density that's associated with it. Cannot restrict density of a proposed development below the highest allowed density on county unincorporated land or land within a municipality, respectfully, where residential development is allowed. Currently, that's right at 92 units an acre, the mini -triangle. So think about it. The mini -triangle, there are a number of buildings that are allowed at 162.5 feet actual. That's what the PUD says. Residential density is allocated at 92 units for an acre. That corridor at Davis Boulevard from the start of the mini -triangle down to Airport -- down to Airport Road, which is roughly a mile, all of that commercial property would be entitled to 92 units an acre, Page 96 of 100 Packet Pg. 100 April 6, 2023 5.A.a entitled to 162.5 feet of intensity of height without a requirement for a rezoning or public hearing. The challenge becomes, for the developer of that property, is how do you fit 92 units an acre in 168.5 feet within those parcels, because those parcels are not, by any means, large, large parcels. You're talking half an acre, three-quarters of an acre, maybe an acre. So it is a -- it would -- it becomes a challenge at the SDP side, because they still have to satisfy your parking, your water management -- your landscape buffers, all the components that are required of a -- of a development by our code, but they are entitled to that intensity and the height that's associated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi, if all of these conditions are fulfilled, the matter doesn't come to the Planning Commission, it doesn't go to the Board of County Commissioners, and it's mandatory at the staff level. My question is, is what if a developer asks for some relief on a setback; does that -- does that go back into the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, or do we know? MR. BOSI: Yes, it would. If they asked for a relief on a setback, that would be a variance petition, and that variance petition would be before the Planning Commission or the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Or the HEX. MR. BOSI: Or the HEX. And it would be something we would have to frame to the HEX as to what this is for. This is for the allowance of something that we did not have the authorization through the local channels but was authorized through the state statute. I'm not sure how much bearing that could weigh within the evaluation, but what I would say is variances are -- by nature are supposed to be related to the unique aspect of the geographic configuration of that parcel of land. To be able to justify the variance sometimes is a little -- sometimes can be a stretch. So there is some latitude that would be provided to the Planning Commission, Board, or the HEX if that was, indeed, the case. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But that would be the only issue. You couldn't open it up and talk about density and height? MR. BOSI: No, no. Density and height is what they're entitled to by statute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. MR. BOSI: And it was -- just as my own perception that the Florida -- and it was passed 109-6 in the House and 40-0 in the Senate, so this was bipartisan support. And my only -- my thought process is what they must have been thinking at the time is this has reached a critical point not just in Collier County, through all the coastal areas in the state of Florida, the housing affordability issue, that they wanted to take the targets off of the local city councils and board of county commissioners and say, you don't have a right to say in this. We are going to entitle at these levels to promote affordable housing, and we view that the public benefit associated with that is worth the restriction upon the home rule that is normally afforded to each county or municipality CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. You just mentioned the term --is anybody challenging this based on the violation or an encroachment of home rule? There has been any -- I would anticipate there will be some kind of legal challenge and find this to be unconstitutional from a standpoint of taking away the authority and home rule. And I'm going to caveat that because there are also federal actions in place under the current administration to -- in regards to equity and inclusion, which essentially is the same thing here. It's not affordable housing, but it was more criteria for equity and inclusion to force developments to meet certain criteria which I believe even -- would be more subject to -- probably deemed to be unconstitutional, but that really hasn't gone much anywhere. But this is pretty significant, and I understand that. But I have to say that we will have to develop -- from a standpoint of exactly what we were talking about, going into areas that this may not be suitable, and if it does require some variation of a setback or others, it has to trigger some kind of a public hearing, because now we're talking about current codes for setbacks, for landscape buffers, preserves, which are going to be other things that are going to be impacted by this, that we're going to have to develop some kind of criteria that's going to -- this is not something that Page 97 of 100 Packet Pg. 101 April 6, 2023 5.A.a should be at the Hearing Examiner. This would have to come through the public -hearing process, and that's just kind of my personal opinion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree wholeheartedly with that. Commssioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mr. Bosi, a quick clarification. You were speaking before about on Davis from the Airport triangle all the way down to Airport -Pulling Road, and that many of those lots are half acre, maybe a full acre. If I understood you correctly, if five owners got together that were adjacent and they came up with 6.2 acres and they could meet these five -- and I'm sure there's another 55 requirements -- they could put up a tower 168 feet whatever -- MR. BOSI: Yep. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- with 90 units per acre and never see the light of us or the Commssion? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public, yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But that's if 40 percent was commtted to at least 120 percent AMI. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's got to be affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But only 40 percent. And the question would be, how do you deal with somebody that comes and says I'll do 30 percent at 60 percent AMI. There's no opportunity to play with the percentage of AMI versus the percentage of affordable. It's just -- MR. BOSI: It's a minimum -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- 40 percent, 120 percent AMI? MR. BOSI: The minimum standard has to satisfy 420 -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's scary. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it's going to be financially a challenge. You're not going to see a lot of this, because 40 percent's a lot, especially if you're going to build a high-rise. I mean, a high-rise today costs a lot of money to construct. MR. BOSI: And Mr. Johnson just pointed out tome, reminded me, it does have a 10-year sunset. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. That's a good point, 2033. MR. BOSI: It does have a 10-year sunset within it but, you know, there's a lot between now and I think when you see the first development that takes advantage that will have to be decided between -- we've got a meeting on Monday just to talk with the County Attorney's Office by some of these just basic premises; how does that apply? What's their interpretation? Unfortunately, I'm not the interpreter of the Florida Statute. There's -- you know, that's the court system that, ultimately, will, I think, have their say. And what I -- think about -- think about the impact not only to the county, but think about, like, the City of Naples that have, like, a 45-foot height limitation. Well, there's a seven -feet -- or there's a seven -story hospital that's along a corridor that's all zoned commercial that is eligible per this statute for that type of intensity to be replicated along that corridor, and that has the potential to really change the built landscapes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, we could be like Dubai. Having been to Dubai probably 15 times -- I lost count -- we can probably look like that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, I answered mine already. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I'm done. Thanks. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I apologize. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Bosi, anything further, sir? MR. BOSI: Nothing further, but much more to come. Page 98 of 100 Packet Pg. 102 April 6, 2023 5.A.a CHAIRMAN FRYER: Much more. MR. BOSI: And we will -- as we develop our discussions and policies, we most certainly will seek guidance and collaboration with the Planning Commission. But, you're right, ultimately, any variance that's associated with this type of a proposal most certainly should be -- you know, we would recommend that the Board of County Commissioners be ultimately clear that has to face the full Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And I agree with the Vice Chairman on that, that it should not be a HEX matter. It should come to us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How does this impact areas in the Rural Fringe or the Rural Lands Stewardship that's already, quote, zoned for development, Sending and Receiving Lands, so that the underlying zoning is there? Can I go out on East 41 and all of a sudden build a 160-something-foot tower? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Regardless of the infrastructure availability? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. BOSI: It shows that you do know something about our GMP, because that's a conversation that the County Attorney's Office are -- we're going to have Monday, because the County Attorney's Office have pointed out some -- some differences between how those areas with the zoning overlays are treated compared to the base zoning, so there's a lot to sort out. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Please stand by. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We could really lose -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fun. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you for that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So much for the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Informative presentation, and it gives us quite a bit to think about. Is there any public comment? I don't see any members of the -- well, not too many. If not, and without objection, we're adjourned. Page 99 of 100 Packet Pg. 103 April 6, 2023 5.A.a There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:31 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 FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 100 of 100 Packet Pg. 104 9.A.1 05/04/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Doc ID: 25157 Item Summary: PL20220003426 - 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 Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Rural Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map and Map Series to revise the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict to add 2.69f acres to the subdistrict; to allow 130,000 square feet of gross floor area of indoor self storage; and to reduce commercial uses from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of gross floor area on property consisting of 21.82f 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. The subject property is located approximately one-half mile north of Randall Boulevard on the west side of Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County Florida. (Companion item PUDR PL20220003428) [Coordinator: Rachel Hansen, Planner III] Meeting Date: 05/04/2023 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Rachel Hansen 04/06/2023 9:41 AM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 04/06/2023 9:41 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Zoning James Sabo Review Item Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending Completed 04/11/2023 9:41 PM Review Item Completed 04/18/2023 4:40 PM Completed 04/19/2023 5:15 PM Completed 04/20/2023 5:03 PM Completed 04/21/2023 8:04 AM Completed 04/24/2023 3:23 PM 05/04/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 105 9.A.1.a PL20220003426 7�3e,- Coiii-t.ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: MAY 4, 2023 SUBJECT: PL20220003426 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (GMPA); IMMOKALEE ROAD — ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT (ADOPTION HEARING) COMPANION TO: PL20220003428 BCHD I COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ELEMENTS: RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB -ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) AGENT/APPLICANT: Agents: Christopher Scott, AICP Noel J. Davies, Attorney Peninsula Engineering, Inc. Davies Duke, PLLC 2600 Golden Gate Parkway 2375 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 306 Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34103 Owner: BCHD Partners I, LLC 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The existing Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict (established by Ordinance 2021- 19) comprises ±19.13 acres and is located between 4th Street NE and Immokalee Road, immediately west of Orange Tree Boulevard. The proposed ±2.69-acre addition directly abuts the northern boundary of the existing subdistrict. The subject property lies within the Rural Estates Planning Community, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. Packet Pg. 106 P r . •.rn� x�; _ H(HI) I CP01) RANDAL. CURVE MP I?k bj f. v ,Property 1 ORANGETREE 9.A.1.a PL20220003426 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), specifically to expand the Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict by ±2.69 acres (from ±19.13 acres to ±21.82 acres), by adding the parcel that fronts on Immokalee Road immediately to the north of the site, and to update the allowed commercial intensity to treat gross commercial floor area separate from indoor self -storage floor area. The applicant also proposes to amend the Rural Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Map in the FLUM series of the GGAMP. The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is attached as Exhibit "A". PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: To expand the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict by re -designating ±2.69 acres from the Residential Estates Subdistrict, and to revise the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict text to update the acreage and allowed commercial intensity treating gross commercial floor area separate from indoor self -storage floor area, decreasing the commercial area from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of commercial area and adding 130,000 square feet of indoor self -storage area. A companion petition (PL20210003321) would rezone the ±2.69-acre Estates (E) zoned parcel and add it to the BCHD I Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). EXISTING CONDITIONS: Subject Property: The Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict is an existing ±19.13-acre subdistrict within the Rural Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Area Master plan and is currently undeveloped. The subject ±2.69-acre addition is an undeveloped Estates zoned lot and designated Estates Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict as identified on the Rural Golden Gate Estates FLUM. Surroundina Lands: North: Future Land Use Designation; Residential Estates Subdistrict. Zoned; Estates. Land Use; undeveloped lot. East: Future Land Use Designation; Rural Settlement Area District. Zoned; Orange Tree PUD. Land Use; Single -Family Residential (across Immokalee Road). South: Future Land Use Designation; Immokalee Road/4t" Street NE Subdistrict. Zoned; Randall Curve MPUD. Land Use; undeveloped/currently under construction (maximum of 400 residential dwelling units and 150,000 square feet of commercial area). West: Future Land Use Designation; Residential Estates Subdistrict. Zoned; Estates. Land Use; Single -Family Residential. In summary, the existing land uses in the surrounding area are primarily residential, with a large- scale mixed -use development under construction within the Randall Curve MPUD. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations: The Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict and companion BCHD I CPUD were established by Ordinance 2021-19 and 2021-20, respectively. The purpose of the subdistrict is to provide a variety of commercial uses, including all permitted and conditional uses of the C-1 Packet Pg. 108 9.A.1.a PL20220003426 through C-3 zoning districts, carwashes, medical and dental laboratories, nursing and professional care facilities, and air-conditioned mini- and self -storage. The proposed ±2.69-acre addition to the subdistrict is currently designated Estates Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict within the Rural Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP). This designation is characterized by low density, semi -rural residential lots with limited opportunities for other land uses. Locational criteria limiting commercial and conditional use development in the Estates designation were established with the adoption of the GGAMP in the Growth Management Plan in 1991. The recent GGAMP restudy was conducted at a high level, viewing large areas and major issues, and created the Rural, Urban, and Golden Gate City Sub -Elements of the GGAMP. Restudy -based GMP amendments were adopted in 2019 and did not change the future land use designation of the subject property. The primary purpose of the subdistrict expansion is to meet preserve requirements on the site and to allow for the reconfiguration of the site plan's commercial area. As shown on the proposed Master Plan (see companion PUDR petition for the full Master Plan), a majority of the additional acreage will be preserve area. Text changes to the existing subdistrict are limited to updating the total acreage and allowed commercial intensity treating gross commercial floor area separate from indoor self -storage floor area, decreasing the commercial area from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of commercial area and adding 130,000 square feet of indoor self -storage area. The change to commercial square footage has no effective impact on the overall commercial intensity of the subdistrict that was approved previously. Compatibility: The specific compatibility review is deferred to Zoning Services Section staff as part of the detailed review of the companion PUD rezone petition where specific compatibility measures are appropriately considered. However, Comprehensive Planning staff concurs with Zoning staff's finding that the 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer abutting Estates properties on 41" Avenue NE does not provide adequate separation from the existing residential properties and commercial uses. Staff -suggested language regarding the enhanced buffer can be found in the Staff Recommendation section of this report. CRITERIA FOR GMP AMENDMENTS 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. 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 4 Packet Pg. 109 9.A.1.a PL20220003426 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. Florida Statutes: 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. Packet Pg. 110 9.A.1.a PL20220003426 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. The petitioner must provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan Amendment. For this petition, a narrative justification (Exhibit V.D.1 "Project Narrative, Criteria and Consistency") was provided by the applicant. Section 163.3187 Florida Statutes: Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 50 acres or fewer. [The subject site comprises ±2.69 acres and the addition brings the existing subdistrict to a total of ±21.89 acres.] (b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government's comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site -specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small- scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (c) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments. [This amendment preserves the internal consistency of the plan and is not a correction, update, or modification of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: The applicant conducted a NIM on January 26, 2023 at the OF/IFAS Extension located at 14700 Immokalee Road in Naples. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and approximately 20 people were in attendance. Christopher Scott, AICP, the agent, gave a brief presentation in which he explained the request for the proposed rezone and the companion small scale Growth Management Plan amendment. The following comments/questions were raised by members of the public in attendance: suggestions to add additional buffering to the adjacent Estates lots, questions about the proposed self -storage facility (currently in SDP phase) and other future commercial development within the PUD, general comments about the traffic in the Immokalee/Randall area. The NIM summary, PowerPoint presentation, and sign -in sheet are included in the CCPC backup materials. Packet Pg. 111 9.A.1.a PL20220003426 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • The Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict petition proposes a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to expand the subdistrict by ±2.69 and to update the allowed commercial intensity to treat gross commercial floor area separate from indoor self -storage floor area. • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • There are no public utility -related concerns as a result of this petition. • There are no concerns about impacts on other public infrastructure. • The expansion of the subdistrict has no impact on previously approved uses or commercial intensity of the site. Environmental Findings: Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of approximately 21.70 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 3.26 acres (15%) of native vegetation is required to be preserved. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. LEGAL REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed the staff report on April 5, 2023. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission forward petition PL20220003426 Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict GMPA to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve and adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required agencies with the following modifications —to provide for an enhanced buffer along a portion of the western property line —as depicted below: [Note: Words underlined are added, words StF Gk through are deleted — as proposed by petitioner; words double underlined are added, words are deleted — as proposed by staff.] 1. ESTATES DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** B. Estates — Commercial District *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 3. IMMOKALEE ROAD -ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT [Page 22] This Subdistrict is approximately ± 21.82 acres in size and is located on the west side of Immokalee Road, north of Randall Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road, as depicted on the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Map. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide a variety of commercial land uses. Development within the Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: Packet Pg. 112 9.A.1.a PL20220003426 a. All development within this Subdistrict shall be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). b. The rezone Ordinance must include standards for a common architectural theme as well as development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. c. Allowable uses shall be limited to those: Uses permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41. 2. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (SIC 4225, air-conditioned mini- and self -storage warehousing only); 3. Cawwashes provided that carwashes abutting residential zoning districts shall be subject to section 5.05.11 of this code, SIC 7542; 4. Medical and dental laboratories, SIC 8071, 8072; 5. Nursing and professional care facilities, SIC 8051, 8052, 8059; The rezone Ordinance shall limit these uses further to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. d. Development is limited to a maximum intensity of 200,000 100,000 square feet of gross floor area and 130,000 square feet of indoor self -storage floor area. e. The westerly portion of this subdistrict (a.k.a. north 180 ft. of Tract 116, GGE Unit 22), which is the single western parcel immediately abutting 4th Street NE (the "Western Parcel"), shall be utilized for native preservation, stormwater management or buffer areas only. It shall not be utilized for any type of access from 4th St. NE to/from the commercial uses within the CPUD; however, the adjacent single-family homeowner to the north (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision) may establish a driveway for the sole benefit and exclusive use of that homeowner's residential property. f. Interconnection shall be provided with properties fronting Immokalee Road located immediately to the north and south. g. The Type B Landscape Buffer along the western property line shown on the PUD Master Plan shall be enhanced in accordance with the CPUD provisions. NOTE: This petition has been tentatively scheduled for the June 13, 2023 BCC meeting. Packet Pg. 113 9.A.1.b ORDINANCE NO. 2023- 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 RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB -ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT AND RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO REVISE THE IMMOKALEE ROAD — ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ADD 2.69t ACRES TO THE SUBDISTRICT; TO ALLOW 130,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF INDOOR SELF STORAGE; AND TO REDUCE COMMERCIAL USES FROM 200,000 SQUARE FEET TO 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA ON PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 21.82f 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. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF RANDALL BOULEVARD ON THE WEST SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL202200034261 WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, BCHD Partners I, LLC, requested an amendment to the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Urban Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map and Map Series to revise the Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small -Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or a rural area of opportunity; and [22-CMP-01135/1781687/1] 65 1 of 3 Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict 4-3-23 Packet Pg. 114 9.A.1.b WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPQ on considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Urban Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small-scale amendment to the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Urban Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map and Map, in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and map amendment are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after Board approval. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued before it has become effective. [22-CMP-01135/1781687/1165 2 of 3 Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict 4-3-23 Packet Pg. 115 9.A.1.b PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2023. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Rick LoCastro, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: VP G Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment [22-CMP-01135/1781687/1] 65 Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict 4-3-23 o (` 3 Packet Pg. 116 March 30, 2023 9.A.1.b PL20220003426 EXHIBIT A GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB -ELEMENT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 1. ESTATES DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** B. Estates —Commercial District *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 3. IMMOKALEE ROAD -ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT [Page 22] This Subdistrict is approximately 19.13!b 21.82 acres in size and is located on the west side of Immokalee Road, north of Randall Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road, as depicted on the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Map. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide a variety of commercial land uses. Development within the Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. All development within this Subdistrict shall be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). b. The rezone Ordinance must include standards for a common architectural theme as well as development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. c. Allowable uses shall be limited to those: 1. Uses permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41. 2. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (SIC 4225, air-conditioned mini - and self -storage warehousing only); 3. Carwashes provided that carwashes abutting residential zoning districts shall be subject to section 5.05.11 of this code, SIC 7542; 4. Medical and dental laboratories, SIC 8071, 8072; 5. Nursing and professional care facilities, SIC 8051, 8052, 8059; The rezone Ordinance shall limit these uses further to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. d. Development is limited to a maximum intensity of 200,000100,000 square feet of gross floor area and 130,000 square feet of indoor self -storage floor area. Page 1 of 4 Words underlined are added; words stFuGk threug# are deletions Packet Pg. 117 March 30, 2023 9.A.1.b PL20220003426 e. The westerly portion of this subdistrict (a.k.a. north 180 ft. of Tract 116, GGE Unit 22), which is the single western parcel immediately abutting 4th Street NE (the "Western Parcel"), shall be utilized for native preservation, stormwater management or buffer areas only. It shall not be utilized for any type of access from 4th St. NE to/from the commercial uses within the CPUD; however, the adjacent single-family homeowner to the north (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision) may establish a driveway for the sole benefit and exclusive use of that homeowner's residential property. f. Interconnection shall be provided with properties fronting Immokalee Road located immediately to the north and south. Words underlined are added; words strUek-threugI4 are deletions Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 118 9.A.1.b March 30, 2023 PL20220003426 EXHIBIT "A' PETMON PL20220003426 RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FUTURE LAND USE MAP R26E R27E I R28E R29E Page 3 of 4 Words underlined are added; words StFUGk-thmugh are deletions Packet Pg. 119 March 30, 2023 9.A.1.b PL20220003426 DRAFT EXHIBIT A PL20220003426 IMMOKALEE ROAD -ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ADOPTED - xxxx, xxx LEGEND (Ord. No xxx-xx) 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict Page 4 of 4 Words underlined are added; words StF Gk thre gh are deletions Packet Pg. 120 9.A.1.c PENINSULAtj ENGINEERING Memorandum Date: February 3, 2023 To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM From: Christopher Scott, AICP RE: Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict GMPA/BCHD I PUDR (PL20220003426/PL20220003428) A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was conducted for the above referenced project on Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 5:30 pm at the OF/IFAS Extension, located at 14700 Immokalee Road. Approximately 20 individuals from the public attended the meeting (see attached sign -in sheet). The meeting was simultaneously conducted through Zoom. Individuals associated with the project team that were in attendance included the following: • Christopher Scott, Peninsula Engineering • Noel J. Davies, Davies Duke, PLLC • Eric Mallory, Metro Commercial Chris Scott opened the meeting at 5:38 pm and provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the details of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development Rezoning. Following the presentation, the meeting was opened to attendees for comments and questions. The following is a summary of the questions asked, and comments made, by the attendees and responses given by the project team. Question/Comment: (John Pelletier, 2961 4th St NE). It's great to see this many people here for this meeting; two years ago there were only three people. Couple things ... what was meant by "fewer trips?" Response: The original PUD was approved for 200,000 sf of commercial floor area. When a PUD application is submitted they are required to submit a traffic study to analyze how many trips would be created. The approved TIS with this PUD used 200,000 sf of a commercial shopping center to determine how many trips would be generated. We're now revising the PUD from 200,000 sf of total commercial floor area to specify 130,000 sf of indoor self -storage floor area, which is already a permitted use, and 100,000 sf of other commercial floor area. Since the storage use is such a low traffic generator, the proposed amendment will result in fewer trips than what was originally approved. We're not proposing to change the trip cap that was established as part of the approved PUD. PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 1 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 packet Pg. 121 9.A.1.c PENINSULA ENGINEERING My only request, is that if you have to redo this Master Concept Plan, is that you provide more buffering where it is adjacent to the Estates lot. I know it says Type B, but I would recommend adding some three palms between the trees and hedge that are required. The 47-acres has four-story apartment buildings going in and I just wanted something so I wasn't looking directly at them. There is a Site Development Plan application already in for the self -storage. We are not proposing any changes to the buffers as part of this application. The Collier County LDC requires a Type B buffer, which is one of the more intense buffers in this location. This buffer is 15-feet wide and includes a five foot hedge with trees spaced 25 feet on center. For clarification, the four-story apartments are part of the development to the south known as Randall Curve MPUD. Question/Comment: (Freddie Brantley, 3357 Mystic River Dr) Are the four-story apartments three stories over parking or four living floors? Response: (Chris Scott) My understanding is that is four living floors, but that is a separate project. Question/Comment: (Chad Everett) I have a couple questions. I know you say this is two separate developments, but we consider this all one project. First of all, are there two storage facilities planned or just one? This extra land, we call it "creep." It keeps creeping north. What is that road that goes to the north? Are you going to provide another road coming in and off of Immokalee Road? Response: (Chris Scott) I'm only aware of the self -storage facility within this (BCHD) development. In regards to the arrow on the Master Concept Plan, that points to the north. Collier County's Growth Management Plan required interconnection to adjacent properties, even if they aren't developed just to minimize the number of curb cuts going onto arterial roadways. This amendment continues to allow for that interconnection; it won't be made unless something to the north develops and wants to connect. Question/Comment: (Chad Everett) What is so important about adding these 2 additional acres? What are you going to do if you don't get approved? Response: The purpose of this addition is to allow the commercial area north of the entrance at Orangetree to allow for a more developable lot. The existing commercial site has preserve on the west side and is required to provide access through the lot to adjacent properties to the north. The additional land will allow for the commercial lot to be reconfigured to make it more developable. If the Amendment does not get approved, then development would need to meet the current development standards and fit within the approved commercial area. It is a net increase of 0.12-acres of commercial based on the acreages shown on the approved MCP. (Chad Everett) When does this commercial expansion stop? We need to stop this creep. I'm personally against this and will do everything I can to stop it. PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 2 Packet Pg. 122 9.A.1.c PENINSULA ENGINEERING Question/Comment: (Ty Vigil, 180 33rd Ave NE) As a commercial realtor, I'm in favor of development but it needs to be smart. The County just approved a transitional use plan and there should be appropriate flow from commercial to residential. We love the rural attributes of the Estates. Since these properties have been cleared, we're experiencing more wildlife in our areas. I'm for development just against this type. It should be developed but there's too much traffic and the apartments aren't even here yet. There are already crosses on the road and now more people will need to cross Immokalee to get to school. It doesn't meet the county resolution on transitional uses; it doesn't flow right ... it goes commercial to residential. So, I don't really have a question, but I just have that statement to be recorded. Response: (Chris Scott) I will note that the location of the preserve and stormwater ponds are intended to provide a transition from the commercial development to the adjacent Estates properties. (Ty Vigil) There is damage to trees from where the property has been cleared and who replaces that. And someone will need to inspect and remove invasives. In this current form, I'm not against development, but I'm against this. Question/Comment: (Judy Womelsdorf, 3214 Brookeview Court) How much of the land is wetlands? Response: (Chris Scott) I don't have that information in front of me. The application includes environmental analysis and the preserve area being added has a considerable amount of wetlands. Any development that occurs, in regards to wetlands impacts, will need state and/or federal approval. (Judy Womelsdorf, 3214 Brookeview Court) Any wetland credits that are purchased for impacts go to the center of the state and don't help the local wildlife, flora and fauna. That's one concern I have with the request. I think the whole area was wetlands and I don't think they should be destroyed. Questions/Comment: (Dick Brewer, 2871 4t" St NE) What type of buffer is provided on the southwest corner of the property between the commercial area and the adjacent Estates property. Right now from my front yard I can see all the way to Immokalee Road so I would like to some buffer so I don't see commercial buildings. Response: (Chris Scott) There is a 15-foot wide Type B buffer, as required by County Code, on the western boundary. That buffer includes trees spaced 25-feet on center and a five-foot tall hedge. The southern boundary is also a Type B buffer where it abuts residential uses and a 10-foot wide Type A buffer where it abuts other commercial uses. Question/Comment: (Name not provided) Have you cleared out all of the trees up to the boundary already? There are no trees on your side there currently where it backs up to a red barn. Response: (Chris Scott) The development has to meet stormwater requirements and get an Environmental Resource Permit approval from South Florida Water Management PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 3 Packet Pg. 123 9.A.1.c PENINSULA ENGINEERING District. In order to construct the required perimeter berms to make sure that stormwater remains on site, that area has been cleared. That buffer area will be planted in the future. Will there be a wall? (Chris Scott) I'm not sure about the specifics for the storage development; the LDC does not require a wall at this location and it was not a requirement of the PUD. (Eric Mallory) There is not a wall proposed with the storage building. Question/Comment: (Dan Brett, 6920 241" Ave NE) Have they submitted for a traffic light at the entrance (Chris Scott) There is an existing traffic signal at the main entrance from Immokalee Road at Orangetree Boulevard. That is the only access to the site. It was already approved and there is no request to change that with this application. There is no access to 4t" Street. The development will provide the required interconnection to the north and the south. Question/Comment: (Name not provided) It looks like they are doing some type of changes in there on Immokalee Road further south of the Orangetree Boulevard. (Chris Scott) Those improvements are associated with the adjacent PUD and I do not have details. You could check with Collier County to verify what improvements and access are required and approved for that development. Question/Comment: (Ty Vigil) Modify my comments a little bit in regards to C-1 through C-3 is a broad term of uses. Nursing and professional care and medical could help with the area. When we see carwashes and laboratories and self -storage and warehousing it leaves us a little uncomfortable. Not opposed to development, just do it smart. Jobs would make sense as commercial would help make self-sustaining communities as we head east. If there are jobs in medical, then that would make sense. Some uses are an emphatic no. Response: (Chris Scott) This amendment is primarily to reconfigure the commercial areas. It is not proposing to change any of the permitted uses that have already been approved for the development. Question/Comment: (Chad Everett) Can't you remove uses with this amendment? Since the developer wants more, why don't you make some concessions. Self -storage isn't needed. Bill told me this was going to be a medical place and now I hear about storage uses. Response: (Eric Mallory) I'll tell you where we're at. We have a range of uses, but its not done; people are still in their due -diligence period. With price increases, things can change. The property along Immokalee (bottom right) is actually two outparcels which will include a potential McDonalds at the intersection and then a larger outparcel below that is planned to be a medial office building. The southwest commercial area is proposed to be a self -storage; and there is only one self -storage between this PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 4 Packet Pg. 124 9.A.1.c PENINSULA ENGINEERING development and the adjacent PUD. North of the storage is another medical office building. There are two medical office buildings planned here. The northern C is why we are amending the PUD. We want to square up that lot and want to do a small shopping center. The deviation will allow parking up front. That is really all we are asking for. Our project is relatively small and discreet. Question/Comment: (No name provided) There was supposed to be a shopping center on Randall on the west side for a Publix and CVS. Why are we going to build another one here? Response: (Eric Mallory) I don't know anything about the shopping center you're talking about. This is a relatively small center. For example, a Publix is approximately 55,000 sf; the total square footage we're talking about here is 35,000 sf at most. It is a community shopping center that is likely to be anchored by a hardware store and a small one at that. A Home Depot or Lowes is approximately 100,000 sf. This is not that scale. This is to serve the community and we don't have any other retail proposed. Question/Comment: (No name provided) And no one seems to know anything about this 450 apartments. A couple years ago it was supposed to be a retirement community. Now we don't know if they're low rent apartment, cheaper or whatever. Is there any way to know what is going on? Response: (Eric Mallory) That developer is the Davis Group and it is a different developer. Question/Comment: (Ty Vigil) As you are explaining this, it is growing on me a smidge. I would just say we don't want nightlife. We are ok with hardware ... we just don't want that restaurant that is open until 2 am? Response: (Chris Scott) In looking at the Zoom chat, the only question is how to obtain a copy of the presentation. My contact information was on the letter and feel free to reach out to me and I'll send you a copy. Question/Comment: (Woody Brula, 2393 Orchard St) Are you the group that I got a draft of a lawsuit regarding the lot line? From what I'm reading is when they laid down the lots they put it in the wrong place. Response: (Eric Mallory) That is not this law firm, but it is from this developer. The monuments were in the wrong place. So from 4t" Street to Immokalee there is 30' missing. (Chris Scott) That affects all lots between 4t" Street and Immokalee. There was a surveying error when they were first putting down those roads from the original Golden Gate plat. The canal that is to the west is 30' larger than it should be and the land between 4tn and Immokalee is 30' smaller. That is a separate matter that isn't a part of this application. Question/Comment: (Judy Womelsdorf, 3214 Brookeview Ct) My biggest concern is the traffic. Getting out is difficult and if there was an emergency. What you have to go through just to get to Publix is awful. I don't see anyone ever addressing traffic. PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 5 Packet Pg. 125 9.A.1.c PENINSULAti ENGINEERING (Chad Everett) I made this point last time and no one cares. The commissioners don't care about traffic; they don't live out here. We want this to stop; we don't want it to reach Oil Well. My goal is to stop this. The bears that live in this area; we now have four bear families living in our area. I understand what you're trying to do, but we need to stop it. Question/Comment: (No name given) Between Valencia Trail and Shadowlawn; its Peninsula and it's called N- Square or Immokalee Square. It's another apartment project — hundreds of apartments. Response: (Chris Scott) That is a separate project. If there are no more questions regarding this application, then we will adjourn the meeting. The meeting is adjourned. PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 6 Packet Pg. 126 - peoa 001e)iowwl 9Zb£000ZZOZId : L565Z) s;uewnooa WIN - 8;u0wy3e;;y :;u0wy3e4;d T m LJ fa �V E E O U Ln a) a--+ Ln w I O CC N O E E co c� N rn 0 O N O N CD z w w z O a OC O U- z 0 O O re O m w z rn N O N a D z a - peon 00I8)iowwl 9Zb£000ZZOZId L565Z) s;uewnooa WIN - 8;u0wy3e;;y :;u0wy3e4;d 00 1T N m Jfy m �W a W Z V) Z_(D c Zz W w .O +� a Q �, CT O W +� o a E � v � (1) V) E °' o a) � O U _ O hA � O � � � O Q N Q CT_O Q O cn O `n -_ - 0 0 N - peob aalelouaual 9ZV£OOOZZOZId : M9Z) s;uewnooa WIN - 8 4uauay3e44V :}uaLugOBIIV a \J rn Q C7 1111 Z N Z O UH O oc z F.RAd ZI w 2 U J W I w sell Ln W L Qj Q) 4-j .C) U 1 a� w m m U w - peon 00I8)iowwl 9Zb£000ZZOZId : L565Z) s;uewnooa WIN - 8;u0wy3e;;y :;u0wy3e4;d c Jz CD a 1 a a z 0 a U O z 0 Q oc O LL U w mmn oc a r Ar Ar f -7 W V u 0 E U vi c�6 p , •� p U Q) 0O N i N 0 m 0 v N +� CDLn U .� O 4- ' 4-1 p O Z3 O O 1 1 .i / Lm E U X 0 N O O OU C6 O / Ul) /1 /� � V QD N O U V) N U O +, U Q � Q (4r) C� Q) 0 Zi - peon 00I8)iowwl 9Zb£000ZZOZId : LGLSZ) s;uewnooa WIN - 8;u0wy3e;;y :;u0wy3e4;d N 1T `" q \J Ci) Z N N cn cn cn (1) d 41 aJ iJ iJ iJ Y r�W M M M M M M a Lu inz NL� r-�Oo r-I Ln `1 00 lD m ? m cV O fV rI r-I Z Z W W a Q o �Q ��c On � -j aj m zi�N N N E *' �' v Ln Ln +� W -1 N (0 c/f H V a Z bJp ate, oy ❑ Y ff � � ry e m f 5C W WIL "I wah '� yase ase LU JAY DVS W Y LU Q Y m a Y Z ' ap uj IMMOKALEE ROAD — U-�-_ w CL vJU I,C wpm LLggm W W LL gg Z S O 62 !L d❑ 7'. 1 b' 7 m N J a U az P %-=--=o_ w CL �7a ui. x ` vs V �� awr4 ., ui.' w LULL, i a W a x.r �' �Sm�w ♦ ♦ o wa ? QW Lj a 11 a uJ ? w ? r m W V / l�nl�uoa1T_ l�l�`l J L ¢ l z a� ¢w c { q�' w P rc I I IL❑wm46 4pLL ❑ U- - '�t} aW 0,0>❑ q Wm i w aw 199'm om C O a N� a`�� QZI z _ Ww�1 µ�µ11H I F yG t W F61! ! ANi uj � , oI gpLL w ww r 7 w u 2 n I w m � a� 1 u¢ QH - P C _ ❑ Q LW _4TH STREET N.E. LU C7 p0fw4 U - peoa 001e)iowwl 9Zb£000ZZOZId : L565Z) s;uewnooa WIN - 8;u0wy3e;;y :;u0wy3e;;y VLLJ w W 1T a \! Z N N N N cn +n J� � � U U U U ZlD ? N � -I � � nj O m rl � Z Z N c-I z g rN U Z O U DC W H a 0 w O a O oc a Q v tCC7A CC C UJ CL fD +j - 4J Z > i G N C/) a + i n E N �n 4 W � a' O + > c6 I- �y Oa ax ��CMoti�nerW �o — omx33mnwwi �, - peob GOIBIOwwl 9Zti£000ZZOZId : LSLSZ) s;uewnooa WIN - 8;uawy3e4lV :;uawyoe;;d / 1V' \!. N W (D Q U 0 w cn O a O ac a U (3) D J c U L— Q) i + + ' + + tto N V) 0 CL 0 CL v-i r,4Inr,,-m CLL,T -� M �DMr-4 r_ :p M y w u m CL V) r_ 0 Ck- LU Cp C L ro c >ru Q aj u tin L L V1 E L ra u R;r C J - peoa 001e)iowwl 9Zb£000ZZOZId : L565Z) s;uewnooa WIN - 8;u0wy3e;;y :;u0wy3e4;d IZ Q) N W z Q U 0 w O a O oc a C6 LlJ Q) E O N Q) U 0 U U U) cn O V) Q) I N c O N El s m Q m 2 t) Q 01 • N Q) El • H m U Q) E E O O tl0 O O O O O N E O 4-1 .Ln Q� 4- 0 4- Ln CD O 0 O a--j U Q) O U C6 E UO 4-1 - Q) E E E O U a--j N O Q) O U O 11 O N LA Q� m Q �0 C6 Q O E O O 0 0 Q Q) z - peoa aale)Iou wl 9Zti£OOOZZOZId : 191,96 s;uownooa WIN - 8 4u9wtJ3B44V :;uGwt43e;}d a \! Z O Q w 0 w cn O a O oc a = O w O QJ c O N N c O U a— — a- — +� N +� j > +� N O O O O O O Q) N ---j cn c6 -0 � C10 LL 4- N v 1 N O LnN p O Q� tZ0 Ln N Q v Q 4-' N OZ � O � Q NN u- OU v U U Q OU �--� Q �' O N J O O Ln p O O � � 0O a--, c� oC c6 E Q � cn _ � O N cn O J tZ0 a- c� N a--� O +, N Q - - +� Q E E°-0mE.-�0-N - peon 00I8)iowwl 9Zb£000ZZOZId : L565Z) s;uewnooa WIN - 8;u0wy3e;;y :;u0wy3e4;d ti Jz CD a 1 N Z O on selelsa - 4- a) a) a) E E 0 cn a) 4-a (n ui C\l00 6 CIO cu C) co 0 0 c ry C o C) m C14 ap a) ici C\I m -TO E cu CN L- -�e -J 0 0 a. w- E— c4 E 0 �'c: 0 D 0 co :3 CL 0 0 r CY) a) co z :u:-) PEON 88IBlOwwl 9ZVCOOOZZOZ-ld : 19696 sluawnooa WIN - 8 4U8wtI3844V:lU8w143e4jV co Cl) a. NJ m q� <j 04, CL "AN rl"e 7 CL CIS 41 ij C al 0 Ll -N 4) z E W E 0 cn 4" CU , 0) w 00 �p w CV0 - 6 'A - (51) 2 cu o T 0 0 C: C) o C) 01) (D N = V) a) clq to E m O L- 0 cN) CN-�e 0 4— E E cc :t D o ch CL 0 (D cu �+- (-) L— Cl) 0 --,) X w m U) -C -C 0) LL< m z :L DL PEON 881BIOWW1 9ZVCOOOZZOZ-ld 1569Z) sluawnooaWIN - 8 4U8W43844V:lu8wt43e4jv M Cl) ui r 01 i 0 U U) zl W I C\I 'IT c1r) C) 0 0 C\l N 0 04 —i n 4-0 Cl) C/) selelsa - 4- (D a) a) -C E U) E C 0 1 C: 0) a)VJ 4-CD U) CO w N a) 4;4 6 - a) or) C) C') m 0 0 o cj� 0 0 C) a) N Lo (N cu S? 0 E co Coll cu C\l L- -2 -1 0 C'� 0 '1- E c 0cN E'a i >-' ZE 0 CU =) a)CL 0 C: C: a) " 0 -cIo x -w C>U' 3: -0 C: a) z Z)LL PEON 88IBlOwwl 9ZVCOOOZZOZ-ld 19696 sluawnooa WIN - 8 4U8wtI3844V:lu8wt43e4jv a. m a. 7- ui N 1Q, 0 r z 9.A.1.c N ttu aptrs 43a* NTtws PART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 PENINSULA ENGINEERING 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWY NAPLES, FL 34105 ATTN Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared who on oath says that they serve as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 1 /11 /2023 Subscribed and sworn to before on January 11th, 2023 Notary, State of WI, County of Brown My commission expires: " PUBLICATION COST: $302.40 KA:ate EEN ALLEN AD No: GC11000123 ary Public CUSTOMER NO: 585101 Stf Wisconsin PO#: PUBLIC NOTICE AD SIZE: DISPLAY AD 2X4.5 Packet Pg. 141 9.A.1.c NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING ADVERNSEMENT Newspaper Advertisement Layout: Project Location Map must be minimum of 2 inches by 3 inches: NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting hosted by Chris Scott of Peninsula Engineering and Noel Davies of Davies Duke, PLLC on Thursday, January 26, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. at the UFIIFAS Extension Collier County, 147001mmokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120. BCHD Partners I, LLC is seeking approval of a GMPA and PUDZ to add a 2.69-acre Estates zoned parcel that fronts on Immokalee Road to the existing 19.13-acre Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict (Ord 2021-19) and BCHD I CPUD (Ord 2021-20), The applications increase the size of the Subdistrict and CPUD to 21.82-acres, revise the allowed commercial intensity from 200,000 s.f. of gross commercial floor area to 100,000 s.f. of commercial floor area and 130,000 s.f of indoor -storage warehouse, including a deviation to parking lot design standards and providing other minor edits. The subject property consists of 21.82 acres, located on the west side of Immokalee Road opposite Orangetree Boulevard, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20220003246 and PL202200032442791. ttt SUBJECT �< ai WolfRD GoDR T PROPERTY ggg ' j¢�D S l 7 29h AVE HE 2MAVE NE Business and property owners, residents, and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project. If you are unable to attend this meeting in person, but have questions or comments or wish to attend simultaneously through Zoom, please contact: Chris Scott, Planning Manager, Peninsula Engineering, 2600 Golden Gale Parkway, Naples, FL 34105 cscott@pen-eng.com (239) 403-6727. No-CCHN0123-01 Q a 2 �L y.+ co L Cd CG G O V to d r r to W O W d d Y O E E W N IV M O O O N N O N J a ti Ln In 0 r— (1) E 7 0 O 0 ii m C d E t t,1 cc -W W CD E V a Packet Pg. 1 2 9.A.1.c PENINSULA`,- ENGINEERING January 10, 2023 Dear Property Owner: The public is invited to attend a Neighborhood Information Meeting to discuss the following planning and zoning applications that have been formally submitted to the Collier County Growth Management Department: ➢ Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA, PL20220003426) to expand the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict ➢ Planned Unit Development Zoning (PUDZ, PL20220003428) to expand and amend the BCHD I Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Thursday, January 26, 2023, at 5:30 pm OF/IFAS Extension Collier County 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 BCHD Partners I, LLC is seeking approval of a GMPA and PUDZ to add a 2.69-acre Estates zoned parcel that fronts on Immokalee Road to the existing 19.13-acre Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict (Ord 2021-19) and BCHD I CPUD (Ord 2021-20). The applications increase the size of the Subdistrict and CPUD to 21.82-acres, revise the allowed commercial intensity from 200,000 s.i of gross commercial floor area to 100,000 s.£ of commercial floor area and 130,000 s.f. of indoor -storage warehouse, including a deviation to parking lot design standards and providing other minor edits. The subject property consists of 21.82 acres, located on the west side of Immokalee Road opposite Orangetree Boulevard, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. SUBJECT PROPERTY 2W1 AVE The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes; it is not a public hearing. On-line participation in the meeting will be available via Zoom. If you have questions related to the project or would like to participate virtually, please contact the individual listed below. Christopher Scott, AICP Peninsula Engineering Phone: 239.403.6727; Email: cscott@pen-eng.com 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 143 9.A.1.d PENINSULA1 `✓ ENGINEERING O September 15, 2022 Collier County Growth Management Department Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict GMP Amendment — PL20220003426 1' Review To Whom It May Concern, The following have been included for your review and approval: 1. Cover Letter 2. Completed Addressing Checklist 3. Pre -Application Meeting Notes 4. GMPAApplication 5. Recorded Warranty Deed 6. Affidavit of Authorization 7. Exhibit 11: Property Ownership Disclosure Forms 8. Exhibit III.B: Boundary Survey and Legal Description 9. Exhibit IV.B: Proposed Subdistrict Text 10. Exhibit IV.D.1: Proposed Rural Golden Gate Estates FLUM 11. Exhibit IV.D.2: Proposed Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict Inset Map 12. Exhibit V.A.1: Location Map 13. Exhibit V.A.2: Aerial Map 14. Exhibit V.A.3: Existing Zoning and Land Use Map 15. Exhibit V.B: Existing Future Land Use Map 16. Exhibit V.C: Environmental Data 17. Exhibit V.D: Narrative, Criteria and Consistency 18. Exhibit V.E.3: Public Facilities 19. Exhibit V.F.1: FIRM Map 20. Exhibit V.F.2: Wellfield Map 21. Companion BCHD I PUDA (PL20220003428) Please feel free to contact me at (239) 403-6727 or by email at cscott@pen-eng.com should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincer ly, Ch istopher O. Scott, AICP Planning Manager 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 144 9.A.1.d Coter County Growth Management Department ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliercountyfl.gov or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the address listed below. This form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to the pre -application meeting. Please allow 3 business days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold 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) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use Permit) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIN (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat) ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑✓ OTHER GMPA LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) T48, R27, S22 FOLIO (Property ID) Number(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 37698580002 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right-of-way • SURVEY (copy — only needed for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP or AR or PL # Addressing Checklist (Rev 12/2021) Page 1 of 2 Operations & Regulatory Management Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 145 9.A.1.d Coter County Growth Management Department Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application, indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: ❑✓ Email Applicant Name: Kim Davidson Phone: (239) 403-6807 ❑Personally picked up Email: kdavidson@pen-eng.com 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 37698580002 Approved by: f �Lk Date: Updated by: Date: 4/27/2022 IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR A NEW FORM SUBMITTED. Addressing Checklist (Rev 12/2021) Page 2 of 2 Operations & Regulatory Management Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www. col I iercou ntyfl.gov Packet Pg. 146 Print� [ Tax Bills Change of Address 9.A.1.d Property Summary I Property Detail I Sketches11 Trim Notices Parcel No 37698580002 Site Address *Disclaimer Site City NAPLES Site Zone *Note 34120 Name / Address I HERRERA, LAZARO A=& ELIZABETH 9661 SW 102ND AVENUE RD City I MIAMI I State I FL I Zip 1 33176-2734 1 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3C22 332500 121 13C22 22 48 27 2.73 Legal GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 22 S 165 FT OF TR 121 LESS THAT PORTION FOR R/W AS DESC IN IOR 3111 PG 485. Millage Area • 285 age Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 332500 - GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 22 School Other Total Use Code • 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 4.889 8.7793 1 13.6683 Latest Sales History 2021 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date Book -Page 01/27/97 2276-560 Amount Land Value $ 62,790 $ 7,500+� Improved Value $ 0 (_) Market Value 62 790 Packet Pg. 147 9.A.1.d MAP WEE SMALL I MEDIUM I LARGE �Q�ilfcf7 !'o�ikrr i I. oil gun 40 Introduction 40 Search for Parcels by 40 Search Results 40 Layers 40 Legend 40 Print Ir 0 Aerial Photography: January - 2022 Urban [61N] - 2022 Rural [2FT] - 2022 Rural [10FT] - 2022 Rural [SOFT] Loc)w lu 7_oom Olic de n tl Fy Pan Maasurt� Full County View Packet Pg. 148 Coder County 9.A.1.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.coliiercountyfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: PUDA with GMPA Companion Date and Time: Tuesday 6 / 7 / 2 2 - 9 : 0 0 AM - ZOOM Mtq UMFA - Rachel Hansen Assigned Planner: PUDA - Nancy Gundlach Engineering Manager lfor PPUs and FP'sj: Project Information PL20220003428-BCHD37698520004,37698580002(PUDA) Project NamePL20220003426-Immokalee Rd Estates Commercial 5ubdist. GMPA} PL #: see above aciclln a Propertyl❑#: 37598580002-New Current Zoning: HCHD I CPUD -New Estates Parce Project Address: City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34120 Applicant: Kim Davidson, Peninsula Engineering Agent Name: Christopher Scott,AICP Phone: 239-403-6700 Agent/Firm Address• 2600 Golden Gate PKWYCity.Naples State: FL Zip: 39105 Property Owner: Herrera, Lazaro A. & Elizabeth Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: 2.73 ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: ` iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: G ~' 4-J V. If there is an ordinance or Resolutionassociatedwith this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 1/12/2021 Page I 1 of 5 a. U U U Q r a Packet Pg. 149 9.A.1.d Cotheo r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountyfl.&ov (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app If Site is within the City of Naples Water Service Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then, if the petition is submitted, we are to send it (by email) to the four persons below in their Utilities and Planning Depts. - along with a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton RMiddleton(i)_naplesgov-corn Allyson Holland AMHolland�7a, naplesnov.com Robin Singer RSinger@naplesgov.com Erica Martin emartinCa)nayiesgov_com Disclaimer., Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 150 CO her County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT" NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountvfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes C U1-h P 1- '(.9n .1 � VIC / � .A) -, -- 5 — s �e I }-7'�h-e o -,e,,l d) G �'u 1� �[o��rx►��K,G -vu�6AA L LS 5 5� Pit-G. Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Disclaimer.- Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 151 9.A.1.d ThomasClarkeVEN From: AshtonHeidi Sent: Tuesday, J u ne 07, 2022 9: 1 9 AM To- ThomasClarkeVEN Cc: GundlachNancy Subject: Pre-App Ri§6KMh for PUDA to BCHD 37698520004,37698580002 (PUDA) - PL20220003428 ti"j-es Fallow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Thomas, Please add this to the pre-app notes: Please label the offsite access easement to the south on the master plan with OR Book and Page reference. Thank you! �-i-eidi, �sl�tov�CicleA Man0eLvtig Assistawt CokVLtlo+ AttorvLtU O ffLoe of tkE Covcwt� AttorKtH 2200 North l fomtskoe Dnve, Suitt Sol Na?l.es, FL 34104 (239) 252-R773 Under Florida Law. e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. � Packet Pg. 152 9.A.1.d ThomasClarkeVEN From: KlopfParker Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2022 10:19 AM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Cc: Sabolames Subject: RE: Pre-App Research for PUDA to BCHD 37698520004,37698S80002 (PUDA) - PL20220003428 & Companion (GMPA)-Immokalee Rd Estates Commercial Subdist.(GMPA) PL20220003426 Comp Planning Notes: According the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) the subject property that is proposed to be added to the existing Immokalee Road Estates Commercial subdistrict is located within the Residential Estates. The applicant has proposed a reconfiguration of the existing master plan subdistrict to increase the size of the existing commercial tracts with no increase in the intensity of the uses allowed to permit. Since the identified parcel was outside of the existing subdistrict a GMPA will be required to include it. Please address the following objective 5 and policies 7.1,7.3, & 7.6 Parker Klopf Gcifhe-r Cot4 n Ly Collier County Growth Management Department Senior Planner 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Direct line: (239) 252-2471 Parker.klopf@colliereountvfl.gov Visit our Webiste at: WWW.COL LIERCOUNTYFL.GOV Tel[ its how ive are doing hy raking our Zoning Division Sinvey at http:/!bit. ly/CoIIierZoning. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records- If you do not want your a -mail address released in response to0. public records request, do not send electronic, mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. � Information contained in this email is subject to verification by the Zoning Manager and/or Planning Director; if this v d information is being used as a basis for the purchase/lease of a property or as a guide for the design of a project, it is v recommended that a Zoning Verification Letter or Zoning Certificate Application is submitted to zoning services. Applications for a Zoning Verification Letter can be found v r here: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/`showdc)cument?id=69624 Zoning Certificate applications can be found here: https://www.colliercountvfl.gov/your-government/divisions-f-t r o erations-re ulator -mana ement zonin -or-land-use-a lication zonin -other-land-use-a lications . Q r c m From: ThomasClarkeVEN Thomas.Clarke@coiliercountyfl.gov> E t Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:08 PM To: Ashton Heidi <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; BeardLaurie Laurie.Beard@coiliercountyfl.gov>; BrownCraig Q Craig.Brown @colliercountyfl.gov>; Cooklaime <Jaime.Cook@toll iercountyfl.gov>; CrotteauKathynell <Kathynell.Crotteau@colliercountyfl.gov>; PerryDerek Derek.Perry@colliercountyfl.gov>; OrtmanEric Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl,gov>; Faulkner5ue <Sue.Faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov>; CastroGabriela 1 pirfi(,.V- 3 .'� - Packet Pg. 153 9.A.1.d ThomasClarkeVEN From: SawyerMichael Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2022 9:27 AM To: ThomasClarkeVEN; GundlachNancy; HansenRachel; Klop€Parker Subject: 6CHD PUDA and GMPA pre app meeting Thomas, Please provide the following pre app meeting notes: For this petition request please provide a letter of no impact TIS Waiver; separate letter on letterhead requesting the waiver based on no additional transportation impacts. Please include a brief outline of proposed changes, confirm no additional development impacts and the current trip cap will be retained. Please let us know of any questions -concerns. Respectfully, Michael Sawyer Project Manager Transportation Management Services Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 239-252-2926 mic hael.sanerCa)colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. a Y V U a U U U c 4) E t c� ca r .r Q c E s c� ca .r .r Q Packet Pg. 154 9.A.1.d ThomasClarkeVEN From: Beard Laurie Sent- Tuesday, June 07, 2022 9:00 AM To: GundlachNancy Cc: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: Pre- Appiication Meeting PL20220003428 - PUDA to BCHD 37698520004, 37698580002 (PUDA) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I have nothing for this one. Laurie Beard Project Manager Please note new address: PUD Monitoring, GMD 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Laurie. Beard@ColljerCountyFL.gov Phone:(239)-252-5782 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. .r Q Packet Pg. 155 9.A.1.d ThomasClarkeVEN From: BrownCraig Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 2:19 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: BCHD PUDA GMPA Immokalee RD Estates Attachments: PUDZ-PUDA checklist FOR REVIEWERS 2-2017.doc; Environmental data Checklist updated December 2016.doc Thomas, Here are the revised notes for this one... Thanks! Please provide Environmental Data: Please provide FLUCFCS aerial map of the subject property please include the invasive exotic plant percentage amounts and indicate which FLUCFCS are being considered Native Vegetation. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location, and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the stale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on -site. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. Please provide a current Listed species survey, which should include listed plants for the subject property. Provide supporting exhibits (i.e. Panther zones ect.) be sure to include Black Bear, and Florida Bonneted Bat as part of the evaluation. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on -site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03. 4. Provide calculations on -site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off -site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.8-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). Please clarify that the GMP will still be requesting 15% preservation versus the required 25% preservation. (15% preservation .) If required, based on FLUCFCS and historical activities. Please provide environmental data to show support for the new area of preservation. The new preservation area must be equal or greater ecological value versus the existing approved selected preservation area . Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (COME) Policy 6.1 and Objective 7.1. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation requirements and minimizes impacts to listed species as required in the CCML. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. (If found onsite). Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts., if applicable. The property is located in the Well Field Protection zone please address compliance with LDC Section 3.06.00. Packet Pg. 156 9.A.1.d Please Check off $2500 Environmental Data Fee. Craig Brown Principal Environmental Specialist Development Review Division (239) 252-2548. How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request. do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. Packet Pg. 157 9.A.1.d Environmental PUDZ-PUDA Checklist (non-RFMU) Project Name Pt(04 Ta &H Ij Can p/1— T"G &_-Hi) — PJ,2,&�_-.emu 3,ei-6 I. Is the project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties? (CON, ST, PUD, RLSA, RFMU, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) Not in CV Library 2. Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay -P627 3. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.H.1). Preserve Label- P546 4. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off -site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H. Ld-e). Preserve Calculation P547 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H. I .b. Preserve Width - P603 6. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) Preserve Selection- P550 7. Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide crass -sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3,05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) Preserve Setback — New 8. Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required, when so warranted. (LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) Listed Species - P522 9. Provide Environmental Data identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off -site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm Q. fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. 19 (LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required — P 522 M U 10. PUD Document and Master Plan shalt state the minimum acreage required to be preserved, (LDC 10.02,13.A.2) v Master Plan Contents-P626 v U 11. If the PUD includes a Preserve Tract section UP FOR DISCUSSION — DISCUSS WITH CAO c m E When listing preserve uses, the following is suggested: A. Principal Use: Preserve; B. Accessory Uses: All other uses (list as applicable or refer to the LDC — see 1-3 below as typical uses listed by agents) Q (ensure the text states "subject to LDC section related to Allowable uses within County required preserves" E Alternate format: A_ Uses subject to LDC section Allowable uses within County required preserves: Q 1. Nature trails that do not reduce the amount of required preserve. 2. Passive Recreation uses, as per LDC requirements. 3. Stormwater only when in accordance with the LDC. Packet Pg. 158 9.A.1.d PUD Commitments and Site Plan notes Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document or master plan: Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.1 .1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 12. PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2.) Unique Features- P628 Example: A management plan for the entire project shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the LDC for listed species including but not Iimited to Black Bear, Gopher Tortoise and listed birds. The management plan shall be submitted prior to development of the first phase of the project. 13. Review cross -sections if provided; they are not required with the PUD. However, sometimes they are provided. Is there any fill proposed in the preserve? Additional Comments: �+� Packet Pg. 159 9.A.1.d Environmental Data Checklist p y pry ro �c�a D �- Project Name70 Fxjlfta The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT? Preparation of Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. 3. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or fatal plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFNW district, provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre -development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site, provide a topographic map to a half foot and, where possible, provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site. For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC} and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3,04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the Q ��t' Packet Pg. 160 9.A.1.d location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 10. For sites or ortions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation provide documentation that the parcel(s) were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06. 11. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on -site. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off -site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on -site, demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans, a location map(s) and property identification numbers) of the off -site parcel(s) if off -site donation of land is to occur. 14. Provide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that ," occupy farm fields (crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas), golf courses, landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or v processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time a were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act v (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard a. Operating Procedure (SDP) FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water v management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a U background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated r site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as m E otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant Q levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be c submitted. The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP E standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. Q 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. Packet Pg. 161 9.A.1.d 17. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. 19. Where applicable, provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. 19. Identify any Wellfieid Disk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans. For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Well field Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern -Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.I4. 22. For multi -slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection PIan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 24. The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) a. Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. b. Explain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the GMP. c. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. d. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. 25. PUD zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26_ Is EAC Review [by CCPQ required? Q �, Packet Pg. 162 9.A.1.d 27. PUD master plan or PPLISDP site plan notes: Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3,05.07. 28. Additional comments 29. Stipulations for approval (Conditions) �'�-G Packet Pg. 163 Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountvfi.gov (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL# PL20220003428 - PUDA PL20220003426 - GMPA Collier County Contact Information: 9.A.1.d Name Review Discipline Phone Email I_l Maggie Acevedo North Collier Fire 252-2309 macevedo@northcollierfire.com Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountLI.gov Shar A.Beddow MSMIDeputy Fire Marshal - Greater Naples Fire 241-1422 sbeddow@gnfire.org _ Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Laurie Beard PU❑ Monitoring 252-5782 iaurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov FZ--Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov I H idi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Thomas Clarke Zoning Operations Analyst 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov Jamie Cook Development Review Director 252-6290 Jaime.cook@colliercDuntyfl.gov G Gabriela Castro Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gabriela.castro@colliercountyfl.gov LI Maggie DeMeo North Collier Fire 252-2308 pdemeo@northcollierfire.com n Qfv r= l}�ry trsc L _[ Utility Planning 252- ��J�:�r 1 i A�;a7v @cD liercountyfl.gov r=1 Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov Sue Faulkner GMP - Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@cDlliercountyfl.gov L_ Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercounty_f_l.gov LI Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov LI Cormac Giblin, AICP Development Review -Planning Manager 252-5095 Cormac.giblin@colliercountyfl.gov Nancy Gundlach, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@cDlliercountyfl.gov I_I Rachel Hansen GMP— Comprehensive Planning 252-1142 Rachel.hansen@colliercountyfl.gov I_I Richard Henderlong Zoning Principal Planner 252-2464 richard.henderiong@col[iercountyfl.gov I_I John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-S757 john.houidsworth@colliercountyfl.gov Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfi.gov _ Anita Jenkins Planning & Zoning Director 252-5095 Anita.jenkins@colliercountyfl.gov l _l Jo n Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov 141"Parker Klop# GMP— Comprehensive Planning 252-2471 Parker,klopf@colliercountyfi.gov Troy Komarowski North Collier Fire 252-2521 tkomarowski@northcollierfire.com _I Sean Lintz North Collier Fire 597-9227 slintz@northcollierfire.com _ Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 252-8243 diane.lynch@colliercountyfl.gov 11 Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@coiliercountyfl.gov I Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 1 252-2911 1 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 164 9.A.1.d Cofljer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercount fl, ov (239) 252-2400 Matt McLean, P.E. Division Director- IF, CPP & PM 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov F Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@coiliercountyfLgov Cl Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Eric Ortman Zoning Principal Planner 252-1032 Eric. Ortman@col liercountyfLgov ❑ Derek Perry Assistant County Attorney 252-8066 Derek.perry@colliercountyrfl.gov Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov (_l Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfre.com ❑ Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenbium@colliercountyfl.gov James Sabo, AICP GMP, Comp Planning Manager 252-2708 'ames.sabo@colliercountyfl.gov Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.tov El Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyff.gov Connie Thomas Client Services Supervisor 252-6369 Consuela.thomas@ coil iercoun Lgov Jessica Velasco Client Services 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 bnathan.walsh@colliercount I. ov ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov F.] Christine Willoughby Development Review - Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov Daniel 2unzunegui North Collier Fire 252-2310 1 Danie].Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information; Name Representing Phone Email �, ��C� l/ wt •Prv,fi.b�ZrF i111G. Z��- �6 rJ �} ❑5c•n.•� � u+V-iE1il1(r- 47,c1�111p,v -r " x c- M M.Lat -r44-,FFr 4- Updated 1/12/2021 Page j 5 of 00,4 Q Packet Pg. 165 9.A.1.d a Participants (M Q Find a participant thomas clarke (Host. me) Chris Scott ?Lto A- G7-a2-Z-�yyg CorbySchmidt, AICP. Principal Planner Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner Austin Howell BLayman MCraig Broa.vn a Dan DanielZunzunegui Eric rvlallory EricOrtman Heidi Cicko James Sabo, Comp Planning Manager Parker Klopf. Senior Planner Pay Bellows. Zoning Manager sawyermichael aD`vVaters 3,�2 L� Packet Pg. 166 9.A.1.d Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division Applicant/Agent may also send site plans or conceptual plans for review in advance if desired. PL20220003428— BCHD 37698520004 37698580002 PUDA — Nancy Gundlach PL20220003426 — Immokalee Rd Estates Commercial Subdist. GMPA - Rachel Hansen STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION ■ Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request Kim Davidson, Peninsula Engineering. 239-403-6700 • Agent to list for PL# Christopher Scott, AICP, Peninsula Engineering ■ Owner of property tall owners for all parcels) BCHD Partners I, LLC — Owner/Contract Purchaser of parcels 37698440003, 37698480005, 37698360002, 37698520004 and 37698580002 John W Themel — Owner of parcel 37698360109 ► Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: (Rezone, etc.) GMP Amendment and PUD Amendment Please list the density request of the project if appiicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that apply): No changes to existing PUD entitlement of 200,000 sf of gross commercial floor area (Ord. 2021-20). • Details about Project: GMPA/PUDA to add +2.73-acre parcel (37698580002) to north of existing P U D Boundary and update the Master Concept Plan in order to reconfigure developable footprint and preserve areas. REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by: Name: Kim Davidson Title: Project Permit Coordinator Email: kdavidson@pen-eng.com Phone: 239-403-6807 Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Danny Condomina-Client Services supervisor dann .condomina colliercount I Phone: 239-252-6866 Zonng DMsim • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104.23�-252-2400-WWW'cdiergov.net Packet Pg. 167 Go*ier Gmt1ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.coliiercounty.gov 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 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLE5, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 htt www,colliercount fl. ov Home ShowDocument?id=76983. 9.A.1.d REQUIREMENTS 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 latestversion) 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 I 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, FLU CFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 ❑ Statement of Utility Provisions 1Er ❑ 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. ❑ c. ❑ Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 ❑ Traffic Impact Study — Rt vLli b &z L Ott - ir No j,4P kr 'T-,s U uu. �• 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 LD�with justificption far ea h {this document is separate from Exhibit E) -j ❑ ❑ Checklist nt nue�s anext�p g} March 4, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 168 9.A.1.d CAT Count COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www. col I i e rcounty.goy 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 Y2" x 11" copy ❑ 19 ❑ Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24" x 36" - only if Amending the PUD ❑ ❑ Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 Q ❑ Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 ❑ *If located in lmmokalee 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: Nichols Johnson Utilities Engineering: Etic_r-r Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (Director) Emergency Management: Dan Summers ❑ lmmokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: �a,rs rv.7 f �^ — ���G[L 674171-I ❑ City of Naples Utilities 0 Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00-'A-I' r_1 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: N,� - ►7r.� of N� �'*'k ° r r„ w-; �.N . �- Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. a Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1.,500.00 '`larch 4, 2020 Page 10 of 1 1 Packet Pg. 169 9.A.1.d Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www. col I ierco u nty.gov Legal Advertising Fees: �� PC: $1,125.00 f�BCC: $500.00 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 qK School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: 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 5`h and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Printed named of signing party Date March 4, 2020 Page 1 i Packet Pg. 170 INSTR 6281289 OR 6151 PG 1982 RECORDED 7/12/2022 10:58 AM PAGES 2 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $2,522.80 REC $18.50 CONS $360,360.00 .:, THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY George A Alvarez, Esq Law Office of George A. Alvarez 10281 Sunset Drive, Suite 102B Miami, Florida 33173 O 305 270 1000 RETURN TO Collier Insurance Agenc7 LLC 2600 Golden Gate rkway, Naples, FL 34105 Property Appraisers Parcel Idetification (Folio) Number 37698580002 DACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DA W RIMNTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED, made e � flay of July 2022, by Lazaro A. Herrera and Elizabeth Herrera, husband and wife, whose post office addiess is, 561 SW 102 Avenue Road, Miami, Florida 33176, herein called the Grantors, to.; , BCHD Partners I, LLC, a Florida limited Parkway, Naples, Florida 34105, hereinafter (Wherever used herein the terms "Grantor" and "Gr legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and W I T N E S S E T H: That the Grantor(s), for and in v Dollars and other valuable considerations, receipt where aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the of Florida ny, whose post office address is 2600 Golden Gate "`include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, ceskrs and assigns of corporations) ndideratign of the sum of TEN AND 00/100'S ($10 00) if"ery#apknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, 3rantee 4Aat:certain land situate in Collier County, State Legal Description o, ; The South 1/2 of Tract 121, less the East 49 feet thereof, Golden Gate Est tes Unit No. 22, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 7, pages 83 and 84, of the Public Records for Collier County, Florida. Physical Address Vacant Land, Naples, Florida 34120 All Grantors warrant that at the time of this conveyance, the subject property -is NT fhe Grantors' Homestead within the meaning set forth in the constitution of the state of Florida, nod it,. s contiguous to or a part of homestead property. Grantors' residence and homestead address is: 9661.SW, ,10P;Avenue Road, Miami, Florida 33176. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belongmgor`in anywise appertaining TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever AND, All Grantors hereby covenant with said Grantee that the Grantors are lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that Grantors have good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2021. Packet Pg. 171 *** OR 6151 PG 1983 *** 9.A.1.d IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantors have signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of A� . �- ' er-,- Witness 91 Signature (s to both grantors) �rx Witness #2 Signature�(as-t �o`th grantors) State of Florida County of Miami -Dade The foregoing instrument was acknow _&W--day of July, 2022, by Lazaro A [.]'are personally known to me or [ 1 [Notary Sea]] ��� pV <: »�� CEORGEAALVAREZ Notary Public State of Florida �� �a oo� Commission N GG 953312 My Comm Expires Apr 5, 2024 Bonded through National Notary Assn C4&- t5 zaro . Herrera, Grantor Eli beth Herrera, Grantor ✓ physical presence or online presence this Nots bttr'Tj 7 —t _ Printed Ninn la e r N My Commis jori�1xpues '' F- Packet Pg. 172 9.A.1.d AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(Sy PL20220003426 and PL2022000342a 1, Bradley A. Boaz, CFO of Barron Collier Mngmt, LLC (print name), as Authorized Agent of Creekside West, Inc., Manager (title, if applicable) of BCHD Partners t, LLC (company, if a plicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner= applicant contract purchaserFland that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Noel I Davies. Davies Duke, PLLC and Christopher Scutt. Peninsula Engineering to act as ourlmy representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 'Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the carp. pres. or v. pros. ■ If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L. C.) or Limited Company (LC. ), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • ff the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. ■ if the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • 1f the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee" • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, 1 declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true. YA Signa re STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER 9l7�za 0 0 - Date The foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of DKhysical resence or ❑ online notarization this -14�day of 20Z Z by (printed name of owner or qualifier) cc eLg h� s {�a7 Such pe-9cm(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: [D Are personally known to me ❑ Has produced a current drivers license ❑ Has produced as identification. Notary Signature: Yh --I,— CP108-COA-0011S1155 REV 3/4/2020 F-49ond KIM D. DAVIDSON otary Public • State of Florida Commission 1r HH 2fl1826 �.Comm. Expires Feb 19, 2026 through National Notary Assn. Packet Pg. 173 Coi er County 9.A.1.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 341.04 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest Form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the b C. ercentage ur such interest: _ Name and Address % of Ownersh If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the ICIUtz: IILdb'e UI 7LUL.K UVVIWU UY edlf I. Name and Address % of Ownership If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Created 9/29/2017 Name and Address I % of Ownership I Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 174 Ca�ler C.., 9.A.1.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.calliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-5358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: e Name and Address % of Ownership BCHD Partners I, LLC 100% Mngr: Creekside West, Inc. 50% Gen Partner: Immokalee Retail, LLC 50% (see attached Ownership Detail) 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 c I i 1LerS, SLULK[Iulutl S, Denei lUdl ies, Ur ,tell Uners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or titers, it a corporation, partnersnip, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 a c� U a 0 U U c a� E t ca a r c m E U 2 r a Packet Pg. 175 GAIT County 9.A.1.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Date of option: 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAQ[: (239) 252-6358 Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand thatfailure to include all necessary submittal information mayresult in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner S�t re Bradley A. Boaz, of Barron CCo7i—er—Management, LLC, Authorized Agent of Creekside West, Inc., Manager of BCHD Partners I. LLC. Agent/Owner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 9/7261? ?_ Date Pclge 3 aL_ 3 Packet Pg. 176 9.A.1.d NAME BCH❑ Partners 1, LLC OWNERSHIP DETAIL Manager: Creekside West Inc. 1998 Barron Collier III Irrevocable R Children's Trust Blakeslee Gable M. Wells Gable Juliet C. Sproul Family Inheritance Trust Christopher Villere Lamar Villere Mathilde V. Currence Phyllis G. Alden JenniferS. Sullivan Juliet A. Sproul Katherine G. Sproul Juliet C. Sproul General Partner: Immokalee Retail, LLC Daniel Plughes and Beth Hughes Thomas Londres Stephen Niggeman Paul Runley Daniel Brickner Joseph Dougherty fl� 100-0000% 50.0000 % 17.5661% 15.9049% 15,9049% 14.3830% 8.9042% 8,9042% 8,9042% 6,3452% 0.9465% 0.9465% 0.9465% 0.3435% 50.0000% 35.125% 15, 905% 20,500% 20.500% 8.874% 5.000% BENEFICIARY OF TRUST Barron G. Collier III's descendants Juliet C. Sproul and lineal descendants Packet Pg. 177 I '3ll'S'd3NiNVd OH38 �ry a= 8o dm '`02 2 a:sLL°w G a �o� R MH oQ Q ae �JNRi33NION3 'vaiaola'uNnoo 31llOO'OS-£8 SOd'L 9'd'ZZ ONANNS31VIS: . .SNINSd 31 0 N30lOO'LZL io"i aM/'OZL 10"I 'sLL 1Otltl1'9LL o"I'9LL10tl 10INvd �. A3Aaf1S ),HVGNno9 30 dVW :mom:~ �Qoa€amaw� p�o8moz eE °so $rc ��oo °Goo m�VLL���'�`.'aw m 083� i�w ':a =a _ o�omoz roar m wa �Urw -r ;o e�rm zrc wg_iw 6,m-.im rcim raw aoo'od�$'o m6 'gzmrcr ff=fix£as°d p S iggow�oow<°w� m�'m`o 8LL mzm° '° o<g - pgg€'" w „M bg m sew a° aZ's°� �' „2�o3Bk'3 weez m' _o - w6 z3poz3pozp�€orcoo ° ��§ww% "opf$WG^_uI • .b:s®�samac 98 €.0 8�"s °. o46a°°,,.s �ww° m�'ar rcu io `_ i�o =�owo >3w map= �a �; �;rc wp= W rc�N� mm�'a3 i'a3�z�'a'a3��a w- ..�w a�wo?'aa - wzmu'ti az�imguwrcoz'�ow�LLohzrc000amHo - rco m.°11 m�8o�mam..._.a.m.a.o°.m.mmLL.m hMM()KAkEE ROAD S-846'- (100' R.O.Mf PER PLA'R q — — w B:'y vn NG30 n_ �i yip 92°1923E 330.1] (PI vncE sm �o vo o,x xsv vo-seaE 60386{ ) ______________--_--_-----_ 3 1 — S2_19'23'— — 330-- _ ---------�--� �_— W1� LL— �" o f LL idJ 00 960 M.95.6ZDON -- 1M2 Uw° H y =U �Q o ° (W)99'6Zf (d)00'09L M.95.fiZ.0 3N 133N1S HIV m OO U Q K H r (A)S6'6LV—96Ze0N (d)00086 M.£SBZeON a3w s *r. - - 4i , Q w c < F uro -o �_ - __ - c. _. ro£�Ms[sz-an� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ I 9.A.1.d PENINSULA�� ENGINEERING IMMOKALEE ROAD - ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT SMALL-SCALE GMPA (PL20220003246) EXHIBIT IV.B PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT TEXT GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB -ELEMENT B. LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION [Page 9] *** Text Break *** 1. ESTATES DESIGNATION *** Text Break *** B. Estates — Commercial District [Page 17] *** Text Break *** 3. Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict [Page 22] This Subdistrict is approximately IQ 13+ 21.82 acres in size and is located on the west side of Immokalee Road, north of Randall Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road, as depicted on the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Map. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide a variety of commercial land uses. Development within the Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. All development within this Subdistrict shall be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). b. The rezone Ordinance must include standards for a common architectural theme as well as development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. c. Allowable uses shall be limited to those: Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Page 1 1 G M PA — PL20220003246 Revised — February 15, 2023 2600 uoiaen Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 179 9.A.1.d PENINSULAQ4 ENGINEERING 1. Uses permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41. 2. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (SIC 4225, indoor air-conditioned mini- and self -storage warehousing only); 3. Carwashes provided that carwashes abutting residential zoning districts shall be subject to section 5.05.11 of this code, SIC 7542; 4. Medical and dental laboratories, SIC 8071, 8072; 5. Nursing and professional care facilities, SIC 8051, 8052, 8059. The rezone Ordinance shall limit these uses further to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. d. Development is limited to a maximum intensity of 209,900 100,000 square feet of gross commercial floor area and 130,000 square feet of indoor self -storage floor area. e. The westerly portion of this subdistrict (a.k.a. north 180 ft. of Tract 116, GGE Unit 22), which is the single western parcel immediately abutting 4th Street NE (the "Western Parcel"), shall be utilized for native preservation, stormwater management or buffer areas only. It shall not be utilized for any type of access from 4th St. NE to/from the commercial uses within the CPUD; however, the adjacent single-family homeowner to the north (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision) may establish a driveway for the sole benefit and exclusive use of that homeowner's residential property. f. Interconnection shall be provided with properties fronting Immokalee Road located immediately to the north and south. Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict GMPA — PL20220003246 Revised February 15, 2023 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Page 1 2 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 180 9.A mA T I— Y N d F I�GtL ao�LnruL+rAmuoerouAmn ...,e, wnew,< e.Ea¢a.e ar.u�aa. reams dtiw.�,.LP.,,rAr IMY. UM,.Y:rw YM1•Ir LEE COUNTY LINE VAND RBILT +olN❑ER ILi BE HRD G11LDE11 [7AY6 ELV❑ P � ¢l PINE R❑E rtn W (:KEEN dLW } U .31 AHE 4 le rJAA❑CN RD INTFRsiM1t'E 7e j1L* LGOLXNi3AT6 FlRNRE LAND 11ld NAP aaorrro-sErreNeLR n. ao+v iMLN0E0 • hPpiL ii, iY11 Inn Nei �u�I.1u1 Aw �n x .ea �¢ m.aoalilf ,weNo� - xnsen n �w1 RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FUTURE LAND USE MAP N"OKALF- RD SUBJECT SITE: IMMOKALEE ROAD —ESTATES P COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT 21.82—ACRES On WL'LLItII L13LVD Y Di GOLDFN OATF RLVV �� �p❑n Lj W INTERSTATE:y Q 0 0.5 1 2 3 —IMilts R 75F R27F R9RF R•H1F IMMOKALEE ROAD -ESTATES BCHD PARTNERS, LLC COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT PENINSULA61). E N t .. LOCATION: 0.5-MILE NORTH OF RANDALL BLVD, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway WEST OF IMMOKALEE RD Naples. FL 341005 a+ a NOTES: Data obtained from Collier County Proe+=,P.a o.00h,00z a o.+.P AA Packet Pg. 181 � M aLUEL Z lk co Of LLI f Yfi LLIw f? or J l m 3 � K Z C - v ` 3'ary a L_ Ica, 3 N5 4v ` Y�.t. - �11 �' - �,• �".;e '� Win., - _..� �� "! v N _ L co co Alto NOW O v O N Q w 'i` 1 1�1 W W O Y A- ZO .. O Z f a w Yo 0 0 = C J' 3'' - pa aa!e�lowwl o f W 3N 1S.PUZ N-P^Ig IS ..m a N P^I8-uosl!M f 1v C p Q ur a s v Z a as � a O+ rL m d � � 6 W Z Lu Z N Y J Z W j E JO- � _ E_ a Z Z 0z w O W N t a (WWO lo!jls!pqnS lepiewwoo selels3 - peoN 901BIOWWI 9ZVEOOOZZOZ-ld MSZ) dnjoeq U33 3 lUGWLl3LPV:lU8Wl43B11V I I EL Ir �Ov, 7r -, !. V tz I CD 6, 1� VIA-14 -f- o tw > r u CO 0 z P 0 0 0 z Z 0 0 0 7. Z .3 Ll I z (D 0.( z z LU = (VdwE) mnm lopiatumoo mels3 - a amp _ls o o dMSZ)dnjo q3dOO-0l m3eP Va_q3e m �2 \ oi \ } )CN CD LL cq co cD \ } \ o LLI : LLI } o \m § ) } z 0 r \ \ \ � ■ � \) � ■ I -- J-x LLI z u LU % o �--------� §� 22 LLI c > z k � ® 2 ) I � z ` / co a $ � - � § u � k 4 \ § § k & 2 22 j &) c§ m ) § ■ ( )§ (k\ � ) ƒk §)¥ ; D # ) c ! tD § �fto� K � c .E) mpq e _g m_3 - a amp _Is o o dMSZ)dnjo qU3 -0_m38R V#_ m p_kV °) CD 04 � § � k - _ alg e3- alq _ \ \ } \ Of \ _ _ ! ; ) § ; / » a \ \ } \ / � ( § § \ E S \ \ \ \ \ 0 S 2 2() } E E 3 1 E_ , &¥ °Fvollill a G �& k §3 g Valencia 2 zo Of £�� %® $ &, \ Ln \ $ R z \ } / ( / zS [k \ \ 2m k§ �( § ) 2k §\)\ 2 § �g� 2 ) Li �E 7 � 2 E E\ $ dk 2 \ w�§ 0. 9.A.1.d ULA7 ENGINEERING IMMOKALEE ROAD - ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA EXHIBIT V.C: LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA PREPARED BY: PENINSULA ENGINEERING 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34105 MAY 2020 REVISED OCTOBER 2020 REVISED SEPTEMBER 2022 BRUCE LAYMAN, SPWS Packet Pg. 187 PENINSULA7 ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 3 2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................3 2.1. Listed Wildlife Survey....................................................................................................................3 2.2. Listed Plant Survey........................................................................................................................4 2.3. Habitat/Wetland Mapping............................................................................................................4 3. SURVEY RESULTS...................................................................................................................................5 3.1. Listed Wildlife Species Observed/Identified On Site..................................................................... 5 3.2. Listed Wildlife Species Not Observed On -Site But With Potential to Occur On Site .................... 5 3.3. Listed Plant Species Observed On Site..........................................................................................7 3.4. Habitat/Wetland Mapping —Native Preserve............................................................................... 7 4. SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................8 5. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................................ 9 TABLES Table 1 - Listed Species and Vegetation Survey Details.............................................................................. 10 Table 2 - Listed Plant and Wildlife Species Observed.................................................................................10 Table 3 - Non -listed Wildlife Species Observed.......................................................................................... 11 Table 4 - Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non -Observed Listed Faunal Species ........................... 11 Table 5 - Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non -Observed Listed Floral Species ............................. 12 Table 6A - Existing Vegetative Associations and Land Uses Within CPUD................................................. 12 Table 6B - Existing Vegetative Associations and Land Uses Within Addition ............................................. 12 APPENDICES Appendix A - Existing Vegetation Association & Land Use Descriptions FIGURES Figure 1— Existing Conditions Figure 2 — Bear Incident Location Map 9.A.1.d 2 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 188 1. 2. P E N I N S U L 1�1 ..-. +, ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA INTRODUCTION Peninsula Engineering (PE) entered into an agreement with BCHD Partners I LLC (BCHD) to provide environmental services associated with a 19.13-acre parcel known as BCHD1 CPUD (f.k.a Immokalee Road —Estates Commercial Subdistrict). The rezoning effort resulted in Ordinance 2021-20 which was adopted on April 27, 2021. Subsequently, BCHD expanded the subject property by acquiring the adjacent 2.69-acre parcel to the north (i.e., the Addition). This Environmental Data report includes the data supporting the 19.13-acre property that resulted in Ordinance 2021-20, as well as the data associated with the addition of the 2.69 acres and the associated land plan, as revised. Data associated with the Addition will be so notes in the report. The Environmental Data author credentials include full-time employment as an Environmental Consultant/Ecologist in Lee and Collier Counties since 1992. The Addition is located in Section 22; Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The parcel is bordered on the north by undeveloped land, on the east Immokalee Road and high -density residential development, on the west by estate -style residential development, and on the south by approved BCHD1 CPUD. The Addition parcel is entirely forested, contains low to moderate exotic vegetation coverage. Historical hydrology has been adversely affected by regional development. The protected species surveys were conducted, and the results summarized herein, to support local, state, and federal environmental permitting. PROJECT METHODOLOGY Bruce Layman, Ecologist with PE, conducted listed species surveys consistent Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Objective 7.1 and its implementing policies and with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission standards on the CUPID property during September 2018. The dates, times and weather conditions are summarized in Table 1. Due to the passage of 12 months, the survey on the CPUD property was updated in September 2019, and again in September 2021, to determine whether site conditions remained consistent with those observed in September 2018. A similar listed species survey was conducted on the Addition parcel during August 2022. The following information describes the methodologies employed: 2.1. Listed Wildlife Survey Prior to conducting the listed species surveys, color aerial imagery and FLUCCS mapping from prior environmental reconnaissance were reviewed to anticipate which habitats may be present. Various publications and databases were also reviewed to identify listed plant and wildlife species that are regionally present and that could occur and those habitat types. Based on the habitat types identified on site, a preliminary list of state and federal listed flora and fauna that could occur on the project site was generated to help focus survey effort. FWC's Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (FWC, 2016) was used to determine the "listed" state and federal status designation of wildlife species. The 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022 field surveys consisted of one ecologist performing east/west parallel meandering pedestrian transects spaced approximately SO to 120 feet on center based on habitat type and visibility limits. These transects are illustrated on Figure 1 entitled Existing Conditions. Additional wandering transects were conducted on successive days, and during the species survey updates, to augment survey coverage and increase the opportunity to observe wildlife. Wandering transects are not shown. The field observer was equipped with a compass, 3 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 189 PENINSULA+ ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA GPS, color aerial, wildlife and plant identification books, binoculars, and a field notebook. During pedestrian transects, the ecologist periodically stopped, looked for wildlife, signs of wildlife, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Due to habitats present and likelihood of occurrence (not to the exclusion of other potential listed species), the ecologist specifically surveyed for the potential presence of the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and trees containing cavities that could have been potentially created by the red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) or could be used by the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus; FBB) for roosting. Given the nature of the parcel, the ecologist is anticipated to have directly observed greater than 70% of the parcel. If observed, the approximate location of observed listed wildlife species and their numbers were mapped on an aerial and recorded in a field notebook. The locations of fixed resources, such as gopher tortoise burrows or cavity trees were recorded using hand-held GPS and flagged with high -visibility survey ribbon. Non -listed wildlife species were recorded daily. 2.2. Listed Plant Survey Over the course of conducting surveys for listed wildlife, the PE ecologist searched for plants listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture (FDA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These agencies have categorized the various plant species based upon their relative abundance in natural communities. Those categorizations include "Endangered", "Threatened", and "Commercially Exploited". The protection afforded plants listed solely by FDA entails restrictions on harvesting or destroying plants found on private lands of another, or public lands, without permission and/or a permit from FDA. Unless the sale of plants is involved, there are no state restrictions for landowners to impact such plants. These provisions are found in Section 581.185, FDA under State law. The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03 — Requirements for Protected Plants identifies 5 specific plant species as "rare" and 5 additional epiphytic plant species as "less rare". The named plants are required to be protected in accordance with Section 3.04.03 conditions. 2.3. Habitat/Wetland Mapping The habitat and wetland survey included the preparation of a Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) map delineating the major vegetation communities and land uses present on the project site. A FLUCCS Map for the BCHD1 project site and the Addition is provided as Figure 1 entitled Existing Conditions. The methods and class descriptions found in the FLUCCS manual (FDOT, 1999) were followed when delineating and assigning areas to an appropriate FLUCCS category (class) or "codes". Preliminary wetland limits were mapped using the standard state and federal wetland delineation methodologies and direct field observations and aerial photo interpretation. Color aerial photos were plotted at 1" = 50' scale and were used in the field to map the vegetative communities on the site. 9.A.1.d 4 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 190 3 PENINSULA+ ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA An important factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion by the exotic plant species, such as melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). Four levels of exotic density are typically recognized. Code modifiers may be appended to the base FLUCCS code to indicate the approximate density of exotic vegetation in the canopy or understory, as follows: EO = Exotics <10% E1 = Exotics 10-24% E2 = Exotics 25-49% E3 = Exotics 50-75% E4 = Exotics 75<% Wet season high water (WSHW) elevation was estimated in the BCHD1 CPUD wetland using hydrobiological indicators including stain lines and moss collars. Triplicate WSHW elevations were marked in the field, and they were surveyed, and the average WSHW elevation was 13.41' NAVD. SURVEYRESULTS 3.1. Listed Wildlife Species Observed/Identified On Site No state -listed or federally listed wildlife species were observed on site during the 2018 listed species survey on the BCHD1 CPUD property. Observations made during the September 2019 and 2021 listed species survey updates reflect that site conditions had not changed from those observed in 2018. Similarly, no state -listed or federally listed wildlife species were observed on the Addition property during the 2022 listed species survey. With no listed species observed during these surveys, the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with CCME Policy 7.1. Neither parcel contained US Fish and Wildlife Service -designated listed species critical habitat. All non -listed wildlife species, either directly observed or audibly detected on site during any of the surveys, are listed in Table 3. Signs observed in the field (scat, clawed trees), regional bear incident data from FWC (Figure 2), photographic eyewitness accounts of an adult bear on adjacent property from neighbors, and direct on -site observation of a juvenile bear, confirm that bears (Ursus americanus floridanus) occasionally occur on site. Though the black bear is no longer listed as protected, the FWC is likely to suggest conservation measures, during the state Environmental Resource Permitting Process, to protect the species. 3.2. Listed Wildlife Species Not Observed But With Potential to Occur On Site The following is a discussion of listed wildlife species that were not observed during either survey, but which are considered to have potential to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat, confirmed sightings in the region, or the parcel's being located within the consultation area for a given species. Species with greater than zero potential to occur on site are summarized in Table 4. Both parcels fall within the consultation areas of both the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens) and the snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis). Since neither parcel contains habitat that is reasonably suitable for use by either species, these are not considered potential users of the site. 9.A.1.d 5 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 191 P E N I N S U L 1�1 ..-. +, ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is listed as Threatened by the FWC and it is not listed by FWS. Given the presence of pine flatwoods on site, this species was considered to be potentially present. No signs of the species (i.e., burrows, scat) were observed on either parcel during the listed species surveys and they are no longer considered a candidate to occur on site. The Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia; BCFS) is listed as Threatened by FWC and its distribution is believed to be limited to an area south of the Caloosahatchee River and west to the Everglades. The BUS is usually associated with FLUCCS codes 411, 621, and 624 and prefers habitats with open park -like mid -story and groundcover strata. Such areas on site are small and isolated. Since site conditions are not conducive to use by this species and no evidence of the BUS (i.e., direct sightings, nests, day beds, etc.) was observed on site during any of the surveys, it is anticipated that the potential for this species to occur on either parcel is near zero. Due to the presence of on -site wetlands, a suite of listed wading birds could potentially use the site to forage. It includes the wood stork (Mycteria americana), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), and reddish egret (Egretta rufescens). These species could opportunistically forage in the wetland; however, the existing density of midstory and groundcover vegetation make it less likely. No wading bird rookeries were observed on either site, nor are any known to be on adjacent properties. The site falls within the core foraging area (18.6 miles) of at least three (3) wood stork colonies. The red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis; RCW) is listed as Endangered by FWS and both parcels are located on the periphery of the FWS consultation area for this species. No RCW cavity trees were observed on either site during the listed species surveys, nor were any RCW vocalizations detected. Though the slash pine trees could be used for foraging if an RCW clan was regionally present, RCW clans typically require hundreds of contiguous acres of pine forest for foraging and nesting. With the nearest RCW occurrence record being 7 — 9 miles southwest of the project site in proximity to City Gate (per the FWC RCW occurrence data base), it appears that there is little reasonable potential for the RCW to use the pine flatwood habitat present on either site. The Florida panther (Fells concolor coryi) is listed as Endangered by FWS and both parcels fall within Secondary panther habitat. Per the FWC data base, a single panther telemetry point was located 0.2 miles north of the project site in 2014. It was associated with a 2.5-year-old male that subsequently died that year several miles to the south of unknown causes. Later, in 2018, cat #251 recorded eight (8) points over a two -month period ranging between 0.51 and 0.98 miles to the south of the project in the residential estate properties. The developed nature of the region and the general lack of regular use of the region by collared cats suggests that the project site is not likely part of a panther travel corridor or an active home range for collared panthers. The Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus; FBB) is listed as Endangered by FWS and the site falls within the FWS consultation area for this species. There is relatively little known about the life -history needs of the species; however, it has been suggested in the literature that roosts may be a limiting resource for this bat. As such, the ecologist specifically searched for trees with cavities that could potentially be used for roosting by the FBB. In 2018, the site contained numerous pines that had recently died, presumably due to stress resulting from Hurricane Irma and subsequent beetle infestation. However, few contained woodpecker cavities and the cavities that were present were either shallow or of small diameter. None exhibited signs of use by bats such as smudging, audible chatter, or the presence of guano. Many of the dead pined observed in 2018 had fallen by September 2021. 6 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 192 PENINSULA+ ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA A tree cavity survey was conducted on the CPUD parcel in October 2021. Seven trees with cavities were documented and their contents were observed via wireless video camera. No bats were observed occupying the cavities. Those cavities that remained intact in August 29022 were viewed, again, using a wireless video camera. Again, no bats were observed roosting in the cavities. Additionally, a cavity tree survey was conducted in August 2022 in the Addition parcel. No trees with cavities were observed. Given the results of the multiple surveys on both properties, it appears unlikely that bonneted bats roost on either parcel. Given that the FBB is known to travel great distances to forage, and given the proximity of the site to large forested areas to the north that may contain natural roosts, it is assumed that FBB's roosting regionally would have the potential to commute or forage over the parcel. The Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) is listed as Endangered by FWS. Indigo snakes inhabit pine forests, hardwood hammocks, scrub and other uplands. They also rely heavily on a variety of wetland habitats for feeding and temperature regulation needs. Though none were observed on site, it is typically assumed by FWS that there is potential for this species to be present. Adhering to the FWS standard Eastern Indigo Snake Protection Precautions may be proposed during State 404 permitting as a means to sufficiently protect the species. Though the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is not state or federally listed, it is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. No eagle nest was observed on either site. Per the FWC Eagle Nest Locator website, https://public.mvfwc.com/FWRI/EagieNests/ nestlocator.aspx), the nearest known eagle nest (nest C0103) is located approximately 4.0 miles east-northeast of the parcels. The site is located well beyond the protection zones of that nest. 3.3. Listed Plant Species Observed On Site Three (3) species of listed plants (per the FDA list) were observed on site during the CPUD field survey. The species observed were the stiff -leafed wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), Northern needleleaf (Tillandsia balbisiana), and the butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis). Both Tillandsia species were also observed within the Addition parcel. All three are listed as "less rare" by Collier County and all three are represented in the proposed on -site preserve. The Tillandsia species were relatively abundant; however, the butterfly orchid was limited to a few small plants. They were typically located on pine and cypress trees. No plant species listed by FWS were observed during the field surveys. The listed plant species observed, and their state and federal listing status, are provided in Table 2. 3.4. Habitat/Wetland Mapping — Native Preserve Natural areas of the project site are comprised primarily of pine flatwood, cypress, and pine - cypress -cabbage palm communities. All three communities on site fit Collier County's definition of native habitat. Based upon the proposed commercial use of the property, a minimum of 15% of the existing native vegetation (i.e., 3.26 acres) would need to be preserved to be consistent with CCME Policy 6.1.1 and Collier County Land Development Code requirement. The location and composition of the preserve associated with the approved CPUD was established per hierarchy criterion 3.05.07(A)(4)(a) given the potential use of the cypress wetland by listed species. Since the CPUDA is adding land of the same habitat composition and function, reconfiguration of the previously -approved preserve is consistent with the LDCs preserve hierarchy criteria. Per the Master Plan provided in support of the proposed County CPUDA, a minimum of 3.26 acres of native habitat are proposed to be preserved on site and the project is consistent with CCME Policy 6.1.1. The FLUCCS code for each community along with a brief description and acreage are 9.A.1.d 7 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 193 4. P E N I N S U L 1�1 ..-. +, ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA provided in Tables 6A and 6B and a detailed description of each FLUCCS code is provided in AppendixA. Historic on -site hydrology appears to be adversely affected as a result of surrounding development. Based upon current field conditions, and application of state wetland delineation methodologies, there are 3.85 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the CPUD parcel, and it is estimated that there are 1.21 acres on the Addition parcel. The 1.21-acre area, mapped as FLUCCS 621-Cypress on the Existing Conditions figure, has not been verified by either the South Florida Water Management District or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Verification will take place during state and federal environmental permit review. Based upon hydrobiological indicators, WSHW elevation was determined to be 13.41' NAVD. SUMMARY Results of the surveys on both the CPUD and the Addition parcels reflect a lack of state or federally listed wildlife and a lack of federally listed plant species. The protection afforded by the state for the FDA -listed stiff -leaved wild pine, Northern needleleaf, and butterfly orchid observed on site entails restrictions on harvesting or destroying plants found on private lands of another, or public lands, without permission and/or a permit from FDA. There are no state restrictions for landowners unless the sale of plants is involved. Collier County identifies these three species as "less rare" and has requirements for their protection. However, since all three are represented within the on -site preserve, relocation of specimens out of harm's way is not required. It will likely be assumed by FWS during the federal permitting process that there is potential for the Eastern indigo snake to occur on both parcels. Similarly, based upon current FWS procedure, it will also likely be assumed by FWS that the project may affect the bonneted bat since the project is over 5 acres in size and more than one acre of bonneted bat habitat will be adversely affected. Adhering to the FWS standard Eastern Indigo Snake Protection Precautions and providing project -specific data documenting the lack of on -site bonneted bat roosting activity are likely to sufficiently address FWS's concerns in order to sufficiently protect both species. Though not listed by either FWC or FWS, the black bear may come up as a point of discussion during the state Environmental Resource Permitting process. Measures to educate the end user of the land, and protection of the bear during and after construction, are likely to be addressed at that time. The current assessment of the Addition parcel anticipates that there are approximately 1.21 acres of state and federal jurisdictional wetlands within its 2.69 acres. The wetlands will be addressed during the state and federal environmental permitting processes. Based upon a proposed commercial land use and its required 15% preservation of native vegetation, a minimum of 3.26 acres of native preserve will need to be identified and preserved as part of the CPUDA during Collier County development review. 8 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 194 5 PEN INS ULAw+ ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REFERENCES CITED Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species, Official List. Tallahassee, Florida. Weaver, R.E. and P.J. Anderson. 2010. Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants. Contribution No. 38, 5th edition. 9.A.1.d 9 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 195 PENINSULA.- 9.A.1.d ENGINEERING'+ BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA TABLES 9 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 196 PENINSULA~+ ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Table 1: Listed Species and Vegetation Survey Details Ecologist Date Time of Day Weather Field Hours Bruce Layman 9/12/18 7:45 a.m. -1:30 p.m. 76°, partly cloudy, wind 0 mph 5.75 Bruce Layman 9/13/18 7:15 a.m. -10:00 a.m. 78°, partly cloudy, wind 0 mph 2.75 Bruce Layman 9/14/18 7:15 a.m. -10:00 a.m. 74°, partly cloudy, wind 0 mph 2.75 Bruce Layman 9/17/18 4:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. 94°, partly cloudy, wind 0 mph 2.50 Bruce Layman 9/19/18 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. 92% clear, wind 0 mph 2.00 Bruce Layman 9/05/19 8:00 a.m. — 2:30 p.m. 77°, clear, wind 0 mph 6.50 Bruce Layman 9/17/21 9:30 a.m. —4:00 p.m. 82% partly cloudy, south wind 5 mph 6.5 Bruce Layman 8/17/22 9:00 a.m. —11:00 a.m. 81% partly cloudy, calm 2.0 Total Hours 30.75 Table 2: Listed Plant and Wildlife Species Observed Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Where Observed By FLUCCS FWC Status FWS Status FDA Status PLANTS Stiff -leaved wild -pine Tillandsia fasciculata 411, 624D, 621 N/A NL E Butterfly orchid Encyclia tomepensis 411 N/A NL CE Northern needleleaf Tillandsia balbisiana 624D N/A NL T WILDLIFE Florida black bear* Ursus americanus floridanus 411, 624D, 621 NL NL N/A FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish &Wildlife Service CE = Commercially Exploited T = Threatened E = Endangered NL = Not Listed N/A = Not Applicable * = Not listed by FWC or FWS, but protection measures typical 9.A.1.d 10 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 197 PENINSULA~+ ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Table 3: Non -listed Wildlife Species Observed Common Name Scientific Name BIRDS Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Blue -gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Red -bellied woodpecker Centurus carolinus Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Barred owl Strix varia Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES Cuban anole Anolis s. sagrei Southern black racer Coluber constrictor Water moccasin Agkistrodon piscivorus MAMMALS Nine -banded armadillo* Dasypus novemcinctus Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Florida black bear* Ursus americanus floridanus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus * Species not directly observed. Signs of species presence observed (e.g., burrow, tracks, scat, remains, etc.) Table 4: Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non -Observed Listed Faunal Species Common Name Scientific Name Status (FWC/FWS) Estimated Occurrence* Habitat by FLUCCS Probable Possible Unlikely BIRDS Listed wading birds various X 621 Red -cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E/E X 411 MAMMALS Florida panther Felis concolor coryi E/E X 411, 621, 624D Big Cypress fox squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia T/NL X 411, 621, 624D Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus E/E X 411, 621, 624D REPTILES Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T/T X 411, 621, 624D FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service FDA = Food and Drug Administration SSC= Species ofSpecial Concern T =Threatened E = Endangered C = Commercially Exploited NL = Not listed Probable Occurrence = >50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Possible Occurrence = <50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Unlikely Occurrence = <5% estimated chance of occurrence on site. 9.A.1.d 11 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 198 PENINSULA~+ ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Table 5: Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non -Observed Listed Floral Species Common Name Scientific Name Status (FDA/FWS) Estimated Occurrence* Habitat by FLUCCS Probable Possible Unlikely Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata E/NL X 621, 624D FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service FDA = Food and Drug Administration SSC= Species ofSpecial Concern T =Threatened E = Endangered C = Commercially Exploited NL = Not listed * Probable Occurrence = >50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Possible Occurrence = <50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Unlikely Occurrence = <5% estimated chance of occurrence on site. ** There is potential for an eagle to construct a nest on site at a later date, though the probability is low. Table 6A: Existing Vegetative Associations and Land Uses Within CPUD FLUCCS CODE FLUCCS DESCRIPTION East Parcel Acres 411 Pine Flatwoods, Palmetto understory 8.84 621 Cypress 3.85 624D Pine -Cypress -Cabbage Palm, Drained 6.32 814 Roads and Highways 0.12 TOTAL 19.13 Table 613: Existing Vegetative Associations and Land Uses Within Addition FLUCCS CODE FLUCCS DESCRIPTION Pine Flatwoods, Palmetto understory East Parcel Acres 411 0.98 621 Cypress 1.21 624D Pine -Cypress -Cabbage Palm, Drained 0.50 nrei 2.69 9.A.1.d 12 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 199 PENINSULA.- 9.A.1.d ENGINEERING'+ BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA APPENDIX A Existing Vegetative Association & Land Use Descriptions 13 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 200 ULLA1� ENGINEERING-4 BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Existing Vegetative Association & Land Use Detailed Descriptions Pine Flatwoods — Palmetto Understory (FLUCCS 411) — This community is dominated in the canopy by slash pine (Pinus elliotti), with a minor component of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and cypress (Taxodium distichum). The midstory includes live oak (Quercus virginiana), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and stunted cypress. Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) is scattered and represents a dominant species in the groundcover. Other species include beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), Caesarweed (Urena lobata), love vine (Cassytha filiformis), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Vines are locally abundant and include muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and cat briar (Smilaxrotundifolia). Cypress (FLUCCS 621) - This community is dominated in the canopy by cypress, with red maple (Acer rubrum), cabbage palms, and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) as subdominants. The midstory is relatively open and includes red maple, cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), max myrtle (Morello cerifera), and dahoon holly. Groundcover is dominated by locally abundant swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum) with pockets of maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) and beak -rush (Rhynchospora microcarpa). Pine — Cypress — Cabbage Palm - Drained (FLUCCS 624D) - This community is dominated in the canopy by slash pine, cabbage palm, ear -leaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and minor cypress. The midstory ranges from relatively open to dense with slash pine, earleaf acacia, cocoplum, cypress, and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) dominating. Groundcover includes Caesarweed, cocoplum, beautyberry, swamp fern and chain fern (Woodwardia spp.). Vines are locally abundant and include muscadine grape and cat briar. Roads and Highways (FLUCCS 814) — This represents the right of way of 4th Street NE including driving surface and maintained shoulders. 9.A.1.d 14 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 201 PEN INSULA�. ENGINEERING-,4 BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FIGURE 1 Existing Conditions 15 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 202 PENINSULA F—NONFFRINr 9.A.1.d BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA pm a-- ......................... ------- ---411 621 r-----------------W_________ .......... --�----__----- ` \�.\\:\ f� ,X\ -- --- -------.----, 621 ---------------------------- . - r_. ---------�.__- -- ---- - ---------------------- 411 i f � ------------ t � f Y r r PROJECT i BOUNDARY(TYP) ..+.............. _._._____+••—+---___, � t r 624D r 1Je----------------------�`'-_-+N-r+. ` r I f r � !f f F � t f f r ' � r LEGEND Milo CPUD BOUNDARY BCHOI CPLfD AMENDMENT BOUNDARY FLUCCS LiMFFS ------ MEAINDFRING PEOESTRIAN TRASECT)APPROI(,I TFtFjJ IAI NARY WFTLAN D9 INDT AGENCY REVIEWED OR APPROVED) AGENCY APPROVED WETLAND LIMFT9 PENINSuLa ENIGINEERH -G liy'i.1NVTl:r QIYTRIICIKIN MANAGfTH!il �'h.e.:le m!M'Iryl 22:1z. r RCECG T IMMOKALEE ROAD - ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT EXISTING CONDITIONS - WETLAND AND FLUCCS FCODES AREA DESCRIPTION 411• PINE rLATWOODs a &t 621' cVPR♦=5s 3 Bs 624D PINE CYPRESS,QABBAGE; PALM, 932 DISTURDED 513 ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 012 stIRTOTAL SCrID1 CPUD 19.1a ,NATIVE HABITAT PER COWER COUNTY FCUOCCS AREA DESCRIPTION DE 411• PINE FLATWtlCDS .098 92 T' CYPRESS t21 u40' PINE-CYPRESS-CA99AGE PALM. D 50 DISTURREO SUBTOTAL 9CHD1 CPIJD AME NDMENT 'NATIVE IUHITAT PER COLLIER GOIJNT' ' I 0WNrJWUENtIG0"UL?AW. BCHD PARTNERS 1, LLC, C-101 03 of 1 16 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 203 PEN INSULA�. ENGINEERING-,4 BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FIGURE 2 Bear Incident Location Map 17 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 204 T1IV!.. t 41 I qi 40 Legend 0 Black Bear In ddent La cab Gns Plu FRIV CC Date Base (A Lig. 2022) 71X1 Property Boundary i S ++�r: �_ :-Y ! L i•L' is 'l+ L1 *.�t s,� y * + ^.osr1s *. \ ,r{, i'S r •' !+*•�' j �ljoi?L;19�1 4J.y _'ljjj ia - r•a{. BCID1 A rtena rtell Bear Incident Locations Through August 2d22 9.A.1.d PEN INSULAj,,�, ENGINEERING IMMOKALEE ROAD - ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT SMALL-SCALE GMPA (PL20220003246) EXHIBIT V.D PROJECT NARRATIVE, CRITERIA AND CONSISTENCY Proiect Information The Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict was approved by Ordinance 2021-019 and is an existing 19.13-acre commercial subdistrict located on the west side of Immokalee Road, approximately one-half mile north of Randall Boulevard, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. The property to the south is currently under development, is designated as Immokalee Road/41" Street NE Mixed Use Subdistrict and is zoned Randall Curve MPUD. The west and north are designated Residential Estates Subdistrict and are currently zoned Estates. The adjacent properties fronting on Immokalee Road to the north of the subject site are undeveloped; properties fronting on 4tn St NE include a mix of vacant and large lot single-family dwellings typical to the Estates. The Orange Tree MPUD is located on the east side of Immokalee Road and is designated as a Rural Settlement Area District. The subject property is zoned BCHD I CPUD (Ordinance 2021-020) and is approved for up to 200,000 sf of commercial uses. Consistent with subsection e. of the Subdistrict and Special Condition 6.h. of the CPUD, the westernmost 361 feet of the property (Parcel ID 37698360109) has been acquired by the adjacent property owner (Themel) and can only be utilized as open space and a driveway for the adjacent residential use. The remaining 19.1-acres is owned by BCHD Partners I, LLC and has received staff approval for a Construction Plan and Plat (PL20210002267, Winchester). Details of Request The purpose of this GMPA is to expand the Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict by approximately 2.69-acres, by adding the parcel that fronts on Immokalee Road immediately to the north of the site. This property was acquired by BCHD Partners I, LLC and is currently vacant. The proposed GMPA seeks to update the Rural Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map and the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Map. Text changes to the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element are limited to revising the acreage and updating the allowed commercial intensity treating gross commercial Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Page 1 1 GMPA — PL20220003246 Revised — December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 206 9.A.1.d PENINSULA ENGINEERING floor area separate from indoor self -storage floor area. The GMPA does not propose any additional changes. A companion PUDA application (PL20220003248) has been submitted to update the Master Concept Plan (MCP) of the BCHD I MPUD. The additional acreage will primarily be used to meet the County's preserve requirement and allow for the commercial area within the existing MPUD boundaries to be reconfigured. A copy of the proposed PUDA application is included with this application and the existing and proposed MCP is shown below. Existing MCP (Ord 2021-20) Proposed MCP 0 ——— � � E + l-MUNGEMEMt 1 � A •• c71 '�. oanr ccmEE a�w F�ro� C C LEGENA- 4. OEVfATION wrrr..Y. ...i iw ui am I C W MERM1 E Esi.iEs, l� :k SEE HIBIT P. ITEM B g. aW B.K waoEVE.orEOlvaoroseo rnvuoPWI00Mx]HI = C C CONSISTENCY WITH FLORIDA STATUTES AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FS Section 163.3177(6)(a)(2) — Required and Optional Elements of a Comprehensive Plan 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. Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Page 1 2 GMPA — PL20220003246 Revised — December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 a c� U a 0 U U c a� E ca a r c m E U cc .r a Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 207 9.A.1.d PENINSULA ENGINEERING 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. Response: The Subdistrict was previously found to be consistent with Florida Statues and supported by data and analysis by Ordinance 2021-019. The minor expansion of the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict is proposed to reconfigure preservation areas; the area of expansion will consist of new preservation area and will allow for the interconnections to the north. An Environmental assessment is included as Exhibit V.0 and demonstrates that the area being added to the subdistrict consists of similar classifications which support the reconfiguration of the preserve area. All of the commercial intensity currently permitted by the Subdistrict, as approved by Ordinance 2021-019, will be located within the existing subdistrict boundaries. The property is located adjacent to six -lane arterial roadway and has available water and sewer service and is proximate to public facilities and services. There are no adjacent or proximate military installations or airports. Incorporating the additional 2.69-acre parcel into the Subdistrict will help to modify land uses and development patterns within the Golden Gate Estates antiquated subdivision and eliminate the potential for an additional residential driveway onto Immokalee Road. FS Section 163.3177 (8) Future Land Use Map Amendments 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. Response: The property is suitable for the proposed commercial uses given availability of utilities, the proximity to a 6-lane arterial roadway, access to a traffic signal, and the potential to capture vehicle trips already on the high volume roadway. The undeveloped 2.69-acres being added to the Subdistrict has similar soils, topography and natural resource characteristics as the existing Subdistrict and will be used primarily as preservation land. The additional land is the minimum amount of land needed to update the commercial area within the site to accommodate the commercial intensity established in Ordinance 2021- 019. FS Section 163.3187(1) — Process for Adoption of Small -Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1. A small-scale development amendment maybe adopted under the following conditions: The proposed amendment involves a use of 50 acres or fewer and: 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 Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Page 1 3 G M PA — PL20220003246 Revised — December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 208 9.A.1.d PENINSULA ENGINEERING 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. 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). Response: The Subdistrict with the proposed 2.69-acre addition totals 21.82-acres. The amendment does not involve text amendment to the goals, policies and objectives of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and is located outside of the Area of Critical State Concern. GMP Future Land Use Element: 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. Response: The proposed GMPA and PUDA utilize sound planning practices to protect environmentally sensitive lands while protecting private property rights of adjacent land owners. The application allows for additional land to be placed into a conservation easement and the project has been designed to minimize impacts to adjacent residences. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). Response: The expanded Subdistrict and associated PUD is designed to be compatible with adjacent properties. The additional acreage will primarily be utilized as native preserve, providing a significant buffer to adjacent residential uses. The commercial area is slightly enlarged, but is oriented toward Immokalee Road, a six -lane divided arterial road. The development provides sufficient buffers to adjacent uses and is required to provide dark -sky compliant parking lot lighting to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties. Policy 5.7: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to the existing lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (formerly known as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, before servicing new areas. Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Page 14 GMPA — PL20220003246 Revised — December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 209 9.A.1.d PENINSULAQ4 ENGINEERINGVA Response: The proposed amendment seeks to add approximately 2.69-acres into the existing Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict. The property is located at a signalized intersection on Immokalee Road in an area with public facilities. The additional acreage will be utilized primarily as native preservation area and allow for the commercial area to be slightly expanded within the existing Subdistrict boundaries. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Response: The Subdistrict and PUD has direct access onto Immokalee Road at the existing traffic signal opposite Orangetree Boulevard. There is no direct access to or from the commercial area to 4th Street NE. Access locations are not changing as part of this application. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Response: Vehicular and pedestrian interconnection is provided from the site to properties to the north and the south. Transportation Element: Policy 5.1: 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. Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Page 1 5 GMPA — PL20220003246 Revised — December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 210 9.A.1.d 7!. PENINSULA-,, ENGINEERING 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. Response: The existing Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict and the companion BCHD 1 CPUD limits commercial development to a maximum intensity of 200,000 square feet of gross floor area and also allows for air-conditioned mini- and self -storage warehousing (SIC 4225). Because self -storage facilities typically encompass larger floor areas while generating significantly fewer vehicle trips, the GMPA and PUDA seek to clarify that self -storage uses are to be treated separately from other commercial floor area and that for every two (2) square feet of self -storage area approved, the available commercial area shall be reduced by one (1) square foot. This change does not increase the commercial intensity of the development and therefore has no impacts to the adjacent roadways. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Objectives 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. Objective 6.2: Protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands pursuant to the appropriate policies under Goal 6. Response: The development meets the minimum preservation requirements of the Land Development Code. Per LDC Section 3.05.07 B.1., commercial projects greater than 5-acres are required to provide 15% of the existing native vegetation as preserve area. The 21.82-acre project includes 21.70-acres of native vegetation and will retain 3.26 acres of preserve. Objective 7.1: 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.) Response: No state or federally listed species were observed on site during observations made in 2018, 2019 or 2022 and the property does not contain US Fish and Wildlife Service -designated listed species critical habitat. Although no listed species were observed, the property does have potential to have listed species due to the presence of suitable habitat, confirmed sightings in the region or because the property is located within the consultation area for given species. The development will preserve 15% of the existing native vegetation (3.26-acres) as required by the Collier County LDC and all development will maintain required setbacks from the preserve to help ensure incompatible uses are directed away from listed species and their habitats. Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict Page 1 6 GMPA — PL20220003246 Revised — December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 211 o (ydWE) loulslpgng lelojawwoo selels3 - peoll aaleIowwl 9ZVE000ZZOZ-ld MSZ) dnjoeq U33 - 3 luawgoeaay :;uawyoe;;y 'kj y N m v a � d � y V m d O a — a Inla i 30siQ v a m c E v E m a 76 s pnlg sapelm A3 � N i 00 a 2 K O 'O a°'' Q O ♦ 3 w a � s a m O U ; a u ` en m a g m O U ` u R ` / �' i / N ` 1 1 0 1 z 1 pa aalelowwl 1 y � � 3 Is] uosl!M 1 P^IE uosl!M PA , ♦ V ♦` ' ♦♦ E ' a r ' L y i v N W Q N W r U �p a y o m O O = � y U � m z O 0 O c0 z U m 2 U W at O 2 y W O w W W rn E m E 0 y _ a a' c J Y O U 0O U = L eo A, A _ a a iL U m J z z a a o w u U CO Nm� R ¢ m= N i Y c N W La w 6> N _ a1 CO O r v > Q °' O O ° N N O X 3 W o T a) N C O d -o oQ O LL Y O N m U= C 0 ei N N L C, O) W N m y N 9 O O :5 0 a) Z O m Q O T m O 0= N Qf O w a) L L w cm f6 = N ¢ U O .. Y) .+ 0 u 3 y 3 LPL Q L I// o am 3 R m a) m > N N N 0 0 'O m i i w U O ¢ O 2 W O Q Q N w ¢ J p 2 2 W N O d ¢ W O to 2 H LLL O a) m L U m w ° w � m C ¢ N c c a) c o O J c m o c w v 00 c m a Bc in � m Q � N 75 LL O V m R y UO V�1 a0.. N CD N O m m N c�3 m a _ O m p "G 0a= 2 � oa U. a W Z I a Q N u m -° m cobL w w _ � m m�a1 O Y w "° E a� m w 3 m ~ 0- O m N :a E a1 O¢ y m a N Y O Q) O :5 W E U E G 4 V! T O T N O >_ m w N L L T cm m H Y V! i m c E m R E E m O T N 5 O E E qp E C .Om° w "° 'a a v b0 m >_ cmi O W >> N N m D E r N ° m Y E a 3 E o 3 am m ° a v m o m d ° m ¢> w m c mo m° g a N c N N ID a1 N a1 W 0,a o- N O E> N" N IL N w E M N N a Cl 0 ,O N "' .. U Q N O� L d y a v 3 a m O �:O m my3: cJ;mc�Ec,, - . 2 a m y 'm0 l6 Z O y J i y V a CL 2 c m> N C w a O° 2 m O. V O E y L r m Z "O V y '6 T m a 0 U O— V L N y `^ m E O E mm o-X°� �Ewacaaaia r° w t m ai O c m Q) U Q) N V '6 E a1 E L L U L m y E 0 O a1 bD O N �-° m m 3 a> a m a: wC W CD J 9 f �k N m \ : z k � � a � 0 ) Am�nRD i m ) 010B® . § ; § \ k k \ m� - i q,I § ~ dl A»q § i / z £ p# ), e Eao—% - � 7� \� m k � ( ■ �� \ � �� % o �f _co - \§ y -- ��x � \5� ) «\&���&g��. �� ■ #e �� m° �a $ ��� � ) � � \ 3u $ } § i k _ m m a a \ uj § k / k 2 2§ 0 m�lsPU ! & ] in ao \ m $ § §m }�} MN IS, $ z . § 2k §\; \ N k f \ k 0 0 \ MN34 S G LU � Ltj \ _ L %] c MN \ / ( � pa Q - $ z �wa / W . J Qaffige ® A q—jaAeyy \ , 9.A.1.e (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. 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. 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. 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) 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. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTINGNOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED Christopher O. Scott WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER AIGKATUREOF APPLICA T OR AGENT Christopher O. Scott NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER 2600 Golden Gate Parkway STREET OR P.O. BOX Naples, FL 34105 CITY, STATE ZIP The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this [9T1w day 1-PP-1'- of zo23 , by Christopher O. Scott ,who is personally known to me and who did take anoath. 4ai SMINA HARDY MY COMMISSION # HH 3430 -,,.�.....oP; EXPIRES: January 14, 2027 My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Signature of NotaryPublic Printed Name of Notary Public Packet Pg. 215 9.A.1.e PENINSULA`;y ENGINEERING V Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict GMPA, PL20220003426 BCHD I PUDR, PL20220003428 Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing Sign Posting —April 18, 2023 Packet Pg. 216 9.A.2 05/04/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Doc ID: 25182 Item Summary: PL20210003428-BCHD 1 PUDR - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2021-20, the BCHD 1 Commercial Planned Unit Development, by adding acreage and uses; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 2.69± acres of land zoned Estates (E) to the BCHD 1 Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD); by adding 130,000 square feet of gross floor area of indoor self -storage; by reducing commercial uses from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of gross floor area; by amending the master plan; by amending the legal description; by adding a deviation to off-street parking design; by updating development commitments; and by providing an effective date. (Companion Item PL20220003426 BCHD 1 PUDR) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III] Meeting Date: 05/04/2023 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal — Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 04/06/2023 12:59 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 04/06/2023 12:59 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Nancy Gundlach Division Director Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Zoning Zoning Zoning Growth Management Department Planning Commission Ray Bellows Review Item James Sabo Review Item Mike Bosi Review Item James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Ray Bellows Meeting Pending Skipped 04/06/2023 12:47 PM Completed 04/12/2023 11:26 AM Review Item Completed 04/18/2023 4:43 PM Completed 04/19/2023 10:28 AM Skipped 04/20/2023 5:04 PM Completed 04/21/2023 9:45 AM Completed 04/26/2023 5:16 PM 05/04/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 217 9.A.2.a Coibe' r County �- STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MAY 4, 2023 c IL SUBJECT: PUDR-PL20220003428, BCHD I COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) (COMPANION TO GMPA-PL202220003426, IMMOKALEE ROAD ESTATES SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (GMPA)) PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT AND AGENTS: Property Owner: BCHD Partners I, LLC 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Agents: Christopher Scott, AICP Peninsula Engineering, Inc. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 REQUESTED ACTION: Noel J. Davies, Attorney Davies Duke, PLLC 2375 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 306 Naples, FL 34103 The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2021-20, the BCHD 1 Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), by adding acreage and uses; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 2.69± acres of land zoned Estates (E) to the BCHD 1 Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD); by adding 130,000 square feet of gross floor area of indoor self - storage; by reducing commercial uses from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of gross floor area; by amending the master plan; by amending the legal description; by adding a deviation to off- street parking design; by updating development commitments; and by providing an effective date. PL20220003428. BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 1 of 15 Packet Pg. 218 �f 9.A.2.a I~sr��"s rti �o m :$2j° � s m dC W U = C' 2 m fv 8 tl IE IE �4 m 3 Yy W ❑ G en {� �y 01 W do m p _ — - 4L 5 '— �_ OYG4133idYbllWl �.. r _ .r w _ I Id ! u oa. + j 1 l i rc ta ❑ L W � lYtliil ll3l$'JS+�M � 1 �w m � F � !�+ � � i W w E u + + + + UJ CL 3 Elf I + ` X U) y + + • I W ¢ ❑ 1 —.1_—.—. —.— � � w LL it sy I � m W m j m - O Y w o ❑ GLO a �J L.—.— —�J F ❑ W W W W W, W r W L j W u d e '0 toCL LU O N : L r� G W u b _ V Z ZUJI _ a 3'N 133iliS F+L mo m .':C PI-20220003428. BCHD I CPUD MASTER PLAN April 6, 2023 Page 3 of 15 Packet Pg. 220 9.A.2.a W b O S 2, Q> w c?rn O F- T: tr w � 2 y L) z=u) aoaaa d LLI5 z� w P w w ° a x a LL � r Q 4� LL� w,, W_ ❑ W d 5, 0> �� Z m IthC } a]2 fr y' C°w3w 2 a:J LU F~++ w z O z x w m W mu p w L a o � Q�dWa� w {] Z O W H U} Il] U =LL2 Wa7 J U o wCL7og2� Wt7S wF W Q Z LL 4 W LL O LL = d '� } J Z W_ W ~ Emu _ _ Vj d w d 0 CL 0 z� vl W gV�H>r9ag? z0 o rr w. z mz r 0 WH W O J w w o m J V— m���Ovl°z�pWiv7 � p 0 > 7 LLI W W LLI w Z V a � w z W zt�] wO4o5 r w� m CL a < w a� w w ru) 5 W W z F a w�❑<aLu 0LLI � r m - U z p NLU z a W LL C!J OD W o O u - a W CL m = pCL W y V7 J Q W d LLJ LV Il} CD ° 0: o w w LU U) ;7 LL F 04 W ~ LU - W ;4 �LV V W O W m L _ w d a a v W w d w [q LL [0 4 T-- s� w J LL 0-< C? _ a �" H m us m = � m � a O W w Z C? } _ 2 a 0 4 ❑ U7 U ° (L) CO w ww x LL w w 0 IL r w n c} y U' cn U m 4] w v r`nn 2 ` w o. B w o z 9 o o Qo y s a Q °� LO ❑ {�] x m m m ��a IL o LL LL ❑ �d z L (n LLF LL Jz d p H F U3U7 a rc a 0- ? Z 0 LL w LL W ww LL w w w �wdr ,~ 25 � w w �J IC x LU CC of 0: IC' t O i = LLILi L3 3 o wu s r r Ri `. PL20220003428. BCHD I CPUD MASTER PLAN April 6, 2023 IL 0 c.i W 00 N IV M O O O N N O N J a N 00 04 M N N a 2 0 m O CL m CO 0) t Q Page 4 of 15 Packet Pg. 221 9.A.2.a GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject PUD, consisting of 21.82± acres, is located approximately one-half mile north of Randall Boulevard on the west side of Immokalee Road in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner proposes to rezone a 2.69± acre Estates (E) zoned parcel and add it to the BCHD 1 c Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The original BCHD 1 CPUD was 19.13± acres and a was approved on April 27, 2021, in Ordinance number 2021-20. o The petitioner also proposes to decrease the commercial area from 200,000 square feet of commercial area to 100,000 square feet of commercial area and to add 130,000 square feet of indoor self -storage area. A deviation related to the location of parking is being requested. For further information, please see the Deviation Section of this Staff Report located on page 14. A previously approved PUD Commitment 6. h. related to an outside party acquiring the westernmost parcel of the property has been modified. The Development Standards remain the same as previously approved. See Attachment A —Proposed PUD Ordinance. This is a companion item to GMPA-PL202220003426, Immokalee Road Estates Subdistrict GMPA. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of Estates (E) East: Immokalee Road, a six -lane arterial roadway and then developed and undeveloped single- family residential with a designation of Orange Tree PUD South: Developing land with a zoning designation of Randall Curve MPUD which proposes a maximum of 400 residential dwelling units and 150,000 s.f. of commercial area. West: Undeveloped land and developed single-family residences with a zoning designation of Estates (E) PL20220003428. BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 5 of 15 Packet Pg. 222 9.A.2.a C IL AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Rezone and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP subject to the adoption of the companion GMPA. Transportation Element: The Transportation Planning staff has evaluated the proposed PUD Rezone. The changes include reducing the Commercial Use floor area from 200,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet and adding 130,000 square feet of Indoor Self -storage Use. There are no proposed revisions to the approved Trip Cap. However, the proposed development scenario may potentially result in fewer trips on the adjacent roadway network. The changes present no transportation -related issues with consistency. Therefore, the Transportation Planning staff finds the petition consistent with the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management (COME): Environmental Review staff has found this petition to be consistent with the Coastal and Conservation Element (CCME). The project site P1_20220003428, BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 6 of 15 Packet Pg. 223 9.A.2.a consists of 21.70± acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 3.26± acres (15%) of native vegetation is required to be preserved. GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD Rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP subject to the approval of the companion GMPA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.13 B.S., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the Collier County Planning Commission's (CCPC) recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Rezone Findings and PUD Findings." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The required preserve is 3.26 acres (15% of 21.70 acres); the Master Concept Plan provides for a 3.26-acre preserve onsite. Although no listed animal species were observed on the property, the environmental data indicates the proposed project is in an area that has the potential to contain a variety of protected animal species. The proposed project is located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted Bats (Eumops floridanus). Seven trees with cavities were observed; however, no evidence was found indicating the trees were being utilized by Bonneted Bats. The property contains potential habitat for Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). Consultation with the US Federal Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding guidelines and permitting requirements will be required prior to construction. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicates 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. Finally, Northern needleleaf (Tillandsia balbisiana), Stiff -leafed wild -pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), and butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), listed as a `Less Rare Plants,' have been observed on the property and will be protected in accordance with LDC 3.04.03. The property is in Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay zones (ST/W-4) and must address groundwater protection in accordance with LDC Section 3.06.12. The commercial uses listed in the `BCHD I CPUD Permitted Uses Exhibit A" are allowed uses within the W-4 zone. Some commercial uses (i.e., gas stations, dry cleaners, etc.) have the potential to impact groundwater and surface water. Due to the proximity of this property to private drinking water wells, Pollution Prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be provided at the PL20220003428, BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 7 of 15 Packet Pg. 224 9.A.2.a time of PPL or SDP review for those land uses which have the potential to cause impacts on drinking water. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and recommends approval. c a Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water and north wastewater service r areas of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are °x readily available via existing infrastructure along the project's frontage on Immokalee Road. m Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. N Any improvements to the CCWSD's water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utility acceptance. Zoning and Land Development Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewingtpropriateness of the reauested uses and intensitv on the subiect site. the compatibility analvsis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers. etc.). building buildine location and orientation. architectural features. amount and tvpe of oven space and location. Staff believes that the proposed development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Staff offers the following analysis of this project: The surrounding land uses remain the same as when the BCHD 1 CPUD was originally approved on April 27, 2021. The land to the north of the proposed 21.82± acres (the additional 2.69± acres plus the original 19.13± acres) BCHD 1 CPUD is undeveloped Estates (E). The land across Immokalee Road and to the east is developed and undeveloped single-family homes. The landscape buffering for the land to the south, which is the proposed Randall Curve MPUD, will be determined at the time of SDP once the final land use at Randall Curve MPUD is determined. A 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer will separate the single-family dwelling units in the Estates to the west from the proposed development. The portion of the site which protrudes into the Estates to the west is an open space and water management area and is the subject of the revision to PUD Commitment 6.h. which has been revised to reflect the sale of the parcel to the adjacent neighbor to the west of the parcel. The additional 2.69± acre parcel to the north will be primarily used for preserve area. It has come to staff s attention during the subject NIM and through neighborhood complaints related to the CPUD to the south, that the minimum code 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer next to the Estates properties is not adequate in locations where there is no preserve area also separating the commercial development from the Estates properties. Therefore, staff is recommending the following Condition of Approval: P1_20220003428, BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 8 of 15 Packet Pg. 225 9.A.2.a 1. The Type B Landscape Buffer along the west property line shown on the Master Plan shall be supplemented with a 6-foot high wall and clusters of 3 palm trees. The clusters of palm trees shall be staggered at a minimum of 16-24 foot o.a.h. and located between the required tree plantings. (See Attachment B-Master Plan with Supplemental Buffer Location) REZONE FINDINGS: Staff offers the following analysis: c 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and a future land use map and the elements of the GMP. r The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP subject to staffs condition of approval and upon adoption of the companion GMPA. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as developed and undeveloped residential and developing commercial. The property located to the west and to the east across Immokalee Road is designated for residential. The property to the south is a developing mixed -use PUD. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP subject to staff s condition of approval and upon adoption of the companion GMPA. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to develop the additional property with commercial land uses. P1_20220003428, BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 9 of 15 Packet Pg. 226 9.A.2.a 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Rezone, can be deemed consistent with the County's land -use policies upon adoption that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP subject to staff s condition of approval and the adoption of the companion GMPA. Development of the proposed PUD Rezone in compliance with staff s condition of approval should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create c types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or a projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the r development, or otherwise affect public safety. _ The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., the GMP is consistent at the time of rezoning pending the adoption of the companion GMPA. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUD Rezone 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. It is anticipated that the proposed PUD Rezone will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas inside or outside the PUD. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based on anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring additional landscaping where the minimum code required landscape buffer is not sufficient. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP approval process and PPL process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of the adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. P1_20220003428, BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 10 of 15 Packet Pg. 227 9.A.2.a 12. W ether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The development will comply with the GMP upon adoption of the staff condition of approval and companion GMPA, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed Rezone 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. W ether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed expansion cannot be achieved without rezoning the property. 14. W ether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed PUD Rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. W ether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or PPL processes, and as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth 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 staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized. PL20220003428, BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 11 of 15 Packet Pg. 228 9.A.2.a 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 10.02.13.13.5 states that "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" c L The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to a physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, r and other utilities. _ A water main is available along Immokalee Road and a wastewater main is also available along Immokalee Road. There are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD's water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utility acceptance. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for Rezones in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain SDP approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff has found this petition consistent with the overall GMP upon adoption of the companion GMPA. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. It has come to staff s attention during the subject NIM and through neighborhood complaints related to the CPUD to the south, that the 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer next to the Estates properties is not adequate. Therefore, staff is recommending the following Condition of Approval: P1-20220003428, BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 12 of 15 Packet Pg. 229 9.A.2.a 1. The Type B Landscape Buffer along the west property line shown on the Master Plan shall be supplemented with a 6-foot high wall and clusters of 3 palm trees. The clusters of palm trees shall be staggered at a minimum of 16-24 foot o.a.h. and located between the required tree plantings. (See Attachment B-Master Plan with Supplemental Buffer Location) S. 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. c 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available a improvements and facilities, both public and private. A The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat. 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. Collier County has sufficient treatment capacity for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit application. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including Collier County Water -Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking one deviation related to the location of parking. Please, refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviation. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking one additional deviation, Deviation #4, from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's rationale, and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. PL20220003428. BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 13 of 15 Packet Pg. 230 9.A.2.a Deviation 94 "Deviation #4 seeks Relief from LDC Section 5.05.08.F.2.b.ii.b) which requires projects on corner lots to provide no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial building or project to be located between any primary fagade and the abutting street, with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the required parking to instead allow a commercial project to provide 100 percent of the required parking between the primary fagade and abutting street when in support of a shopping center adjacent to Immokalee Road. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: c The northern commercial tract of the PUD is a corner lot with street frontages along Immokalee a Road to the east and Orangetree Boulevard to the south and preservation areas to the north and c west. As required by the PUD Commitment 3.c., a vehicular and pedestrian interconnection is v to be provided to the existing Estates zoned properties to the north consistent with the PUD m Master Concept Plan. This access point is located on the northeast corner of the PUD, adjacent N to Immokalee Road. M The commercial tract is anticipated to be developed as a commercial shopping center. The proposed shopping center is proposed to be located on the western boundary of the tract with direct access and exposure to Immokalee Road which is necessary to remain viable in the marketplace. This layout allows for the required interconnection to the north and logically locates the loading and service uses ("back of house') adjacent to the preservation tract where it can be screened from the adjacent roadways and residential uses. The deviation is necessary to provide a smooth traffic flow that minimizes hazards for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The parking area will be adequately screened from Immokalee Road with a 20 foot wide Type D buffer. PL20220003428. BCHD I CPUD TL i April 6, 2023 Page 14 of 15 Packet Pg. 231 9.A.2.a Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM meeting on January 26, 2023, at University of Florida/IFAS c Extension Office (Multi -purpose Room), 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. Approximately a 20 people were in attendance. For further information please see Attachment C-NIM Summary. A A concern was raised regarding the 4th Street N.E. Estates residents' view of the commercial development. Staff recommends the following Condition of Approval: 1. The Type B Landscape Buffer along the west property line shown on the Master Plan shall be supplemented with a 6-foot high wall and clusters of 3 palm trees. The clusters of palm trees shall be staggered at a minimum of 16-24 foot o.a.h. and located between the required tree plantings. (See Attachment B-Master Plan with Supplemental Buffer Location) COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on April 4, 2023. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDR- PL20200000546, BCHD I CPUD to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the adoption of the companion GMPA and the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The Type B Landscape Buffer along the west property line shown on the Master Plan shall be supplemented with a 6-foot high wall and clusters of 3 palm trees. The clusters of palm trees shall be staggered at a minimum of 16-24 foot o.a.h. and located between the required tree plantings. (See Attachment B-Master Plan with Supplemental Buffer Location) Attachments - Attachment A -Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B-Master Plan with Supplemental Buffer Location Attachment C-NIM Summary Attachment D-Application PL20220003428. BCHD I CPUD April 6, 2023 Page 15 of 15 Packet Pg. 232 9.A.2.b ORDINANCE NO.2023- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2021-20, THE BCHD 1 COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY ADDING ACREAGE AND USES; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 2.69f ACRES OF LAND ZONED ESTATES (E) TO THE BCHD 1 COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD); BY ADDING 130,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF INDOOR SELF -STORAGE; BY REDUCING COMMERCIAL USES FROM 200,000 SQUARE FEET TO 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN; BY AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION; BY ADDING A DEVIATION TO OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN; BY UPDATING DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF RANDALL BOULEVARD ON THE WEST SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WITH THE ENTIRE PUD CONSISTING OF 21.82f ACRES. [PL20220003428] WHEREAS, BCHD PARTNERS I, LLC, represented by Chris Scott of Peninsula Engineering, Inc., and Noel Davies, Esq. of Davies & Duke, PLLC petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the CPUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of approximately 2.69± acres of the herein described real property located in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district together with the existing BCHD 1 CPUD for a 21.82± acre project to be known as BCHD 1 CPUD, in accordance with the revised Exhibits A-F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, [22-CPS-02278/1781695/1] 75 BCHD 1 / PL20220003428 1 of 2 4/3/23 Packet Pg. 233 9.A.2.b as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. becomes effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - [22-CPS-02278/1781695/1] 75 BCHD 1 / PL20220003428 4/3/23 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Permitted Uses Development Standards Master Plan Legal Description Deviations Developer Commitments 2 of 2 Rick LoCastro, Chairman Packet Pg. 234 9.A.2.b EXHIBIT A BCHD I CPUD PERMITTED USES A maximum of 200,000 100,000 square feet of gross commercial floor area and 130,000 square feet of indoor self -storage floor area shall be permitted within the CPUD. The uses are subject to the trip cap identified in Exhibit F, Section 3.a of this PUD. COMMERCIAL: A. Principal Uses: 1. All permitted and conditional uses in the C-1 through C-3 Zoning Districts of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Ordinance 04-41, as amended), except those uses identified as prohibited in item C. below. 2. Carwashes (7542) 3. Medical and dental laboratories (8071 and 8072) 4. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (4225, indoor air-conditioned mini- and self - storage warehousing only) 5. Nursing and professional care facilities (8051, 8052, 8059) 6. Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted uses within this CPUD document. 2. Water management facilities to serve the project such as lakes. 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. 4. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this CPUD as determined by the BZA or the Hearing Examiner. C. Prohibited Uses and Structures: 1. Any use that would be subject to regulation under Ordinance No. 91- 83 and any amendment or successor ordinances thereto regulating sexually oriented businesses. 2. 7361— Employment Agencies, only labor contractors Words underlined are additions; words sit-uek-tht�etcgh are deletions BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Pa Packet Pg. 235 9.A.2.b 3. 7363— Help Supply Services, only: Labor pools; Manpower pools 4. Homeless shelter, as defined by the LDC. 5. Soup kitchens, as defined by the LDC. 6. 8063— Psychiatric Hospitals. For the avoidance of any doubt, psychiatric hospitals, including drug/ alcohol rehabilitation facilities shall be prohibited. 7. 8069 — Specialty Hospitals, Except Psychiatric, only: alcoholism rehabilitation hospitals; drug addiction rehabilitation hospitals; rehabilitation hospitals drug addiction and alcoholism; tuberculosis and other respiratory illness hospitals. 8. 8322 — Individual and Family Social Services, only: alcoholism counseling, nonresidential; crisis center; crisis intervention centers; hotlines; offender rehabilitation agencies; offender self- help agencies; outreach programs; parole offices; probation offices; public welfare centers; referral services for personal and social problems; refugee services; self-help organizations for alcoholic and gamblers; settlement houses. PRESERVE: A. Allowable Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. 2. Mitigation for environmental permitting, as per LDC requirements. 3. Passive Recreation areas, as per LDC requirements. 4. Water management and water management structures, as per LDC requirements. Words underlined are additions; wordssowek through are deletions BCHD I PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Pa Packet Pg. 236 9.A.2.b EXHIBIT B BCHDICPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The tables below set forth the development standards for land uses within the BCHD I CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 100 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Immokalee Road ROW 25 ft. SPS From Northern Project Boundary 30 ft. SPS From Wester Project Boundary* 50 ft. 25 ft. From Southern Project Boundary 25 ft.**** 25 ft.**** MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 ft. 10 ft. Rear 10 ft. 10 ft. Side 10 ft. 10 ft. Lakes (measured from control elevation) 25 ft.** 20 ft.** Preserve 25 ft. 10 ft. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES Y2 the sum of building heights 10 Ft. MAXIMUM HEIGHT*** ZONED ACTUAL ZONED ACTUAL 45 ft. 155 ft. 35 ft. 45 ft. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA (ground floor) 1,000 sq. ft.*** MAXIMUM GROSS COMMERCIAL AREA 200,000 100,000 sq. ft. and 130,000 sq. ft. indoor self storage * Setback from 4th Street N. E. shall be 200 feet for any principal use and 200 feet for any accessory use. ** No structure may be located closer than 20 feet to the control elevation of a lake (allowing for the required minimum 20-foot wide lake maintenance easement). *** Per principal structure. Kiosk vendor, concessions, and temporary or mobile sales structures shall be permitted to have a minimum floor area of twenty-five (25) square feet and shall be subject to the accessory structure standards set forth in the LDC. **** May be reduced to zero feet if developed as a unified plan with the adjacent property to the south. Words underlined are additions; words ghwelc-through are deletions BCHD I PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Pa Packet Pg. 237 N OOZ a rn w a M � N aw M0 Y G 0 LL a m � 00 1- a .m.._--- s Ir (m,um a onend) OV02J 33lv)lOWYW 1 J N® I I I N U LLQ p U W z W CL Q � N Q Q W W UD. M Q G xa (] 0 M m'0 � Y O0 LL IN v m w FW_- IL J Q F- Z U m W = Q W Z LU o LU J _.._ r. as ■■ _ I o cn U U- ^ Z W I `---� o m 1 U I g 0 � W 1 I 1 I I<L a wa ❑v ; o �z II d A a I U� �U I 0 to Z It N0a. ❑ 00 (I 1 1 ! Z m W Z w Z aZ 1 II 3wo �2^ _ 1 1 zo Z o» ."� T Z. g II ,Ww zWw I! ! 4 I ELL 5w0 -- 1I I WI Im wW y sr w I < I A 4� '1 1 mc~i v wa I 1 y1 1m Z 1 oN W Fw j f- w0 I as in > I I a l W w w WLU 0 0 Li z I ! �` . a-T! ! 11 W 0: z 1 U- a 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 W a a +I a e II z m d 4 A a 1 1 I I 0 I I - - - - - - - - --- I �.j w I I W ! D I W N m aW m c a U. I I �v A m U m I I Np U cn a 1 5 i z g 0 g N m 0 1 II m wa yQ a wa 5 L.—._.Ji IL Wa F w_ F �z QZ 1-Z aZ :n NQ F W w� ai0 w9 a k HZ w� w ww w ow �w uiw Ij Wm uia Wm Pn a K wm j m 0 d W w W aw m W € V } z g �t LU. Ud�/� ;z cn VI 0 m 1 z IL ZIL o O oN N II TV � _ _..- — _ ,,,,,, __., — — — — ....---- A mo c z K 0 N K i w O a UQ MH � W w 2 U) W 2 U m cog 'Dch o s M C / , W J _�51.2ma W M W � N LL2 = Z W Li w y W o> N O v w y¢ z v m O) M N LLJ N m w L11 L1 _ O W o m o o o� L N COD W J ~ U, U) W ft F 0= F- F- �_ 0 m a as p Q y m o 0 Q LLI QOaaF-d J W F' W w ti a U z Q U)�C w0Q LLLiHLL°°Wow O m J H z �m gm cvv d n Z) U w j J H LLJ W W m a a ? E -61 �U��Q Lu =00ZwOW wo�Aa3'R iz O a'p�F-L) Zwf-N m oo"a mw Z J Z U) W - W g W Z z W H W Z L� W Zw°g O ~ m� W 0-j F d500IL }- w W W� F W U- C3 J W p m Q W W J m azaw�:W0 �Q m U - F- F- z W } womow LL oQmwU- z (A Z�~O0 QOU�ZLL�W WD 1g � O J co W W m fn w< b 0 <Q -�= w 0 2 Q H Z Z p 2 z I Z Z Z Ww L}LQz``�LWiO�-r WLLO w F•' d m lL > U' z a O w� w m Z m z O Z J Z Z U U W Q !- Z Z U) W W F- F- p o w U n W z° g Z J F- z Q W W w 2 J Q a z _ LaLI W F a tY m~ d w U Q (n U� m(D U)z�viv=ig w z0w >mw�=cnz�LLa z U)F-W zzO0w0�p �� U) F- Q Q zU gz Wa�mL1 �Wo0of M&,2U) U � Q ww4oswuwi�wzQ W a� Q ~ Of °° U 2 0 LL z W W W z z~ m OF- F- LL Q Q z w w LL Q z Q z lZ Z U w Z N w W LL LL U) IL Q m W z LL o z o O w n Fn V Z m z o z U` ~ Q w w U z z CO J a W W = U) Chi m m w w ~ w W W �- z c9 W W Q D w U) U 20 W H Q Cwi w J r_ ZM : w 0 r W P� W w z w� LL LL D Q UI I Z O Xc X W < W w Q m a _ Q L^Q�7 M ,L 10 M en } N CC W O W Q LUO < Zp m - W W O 3 O LL U O LL O IL C,4LL Cl)vi V C6 �o (0 L Q Q NL m O W U) Q O O O O U O U) Z U = X P w Po w Z w w wo J �L W W W z W Ui rn Q to N O fn CL � EY W U U Z U U a o f O O W W W� W W 0 J 0 J t7 J p J 7 o^ SLj o di LL U)�/ / Z LL U o p W w o O O W O O LL LL K � W F- W Z d W v L�1. N j LL LL z Jr C p I.L.. Z O W LL L LL LL :) w G C6 VJ K d W Z In � W rn J W J W W F- _l W J w N LU - ULLJ O O a w a Q tY cn tY tY - w `¢i O O LL ° W z 5C00 G r r o a o a W ao LL LL 0 z rc w e � z CO Q e e o o e a N a C a N M Q tD V a N Q N C LL w � a U) Q � w ~ W f U 3 � ? W _ � � a r W w Z H < 3 z a � W Q � � � O p z g 9.A.2.b EXHIBIT D BCHD I CPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION • , • • • • • • -SLYAN MEN fm01Ul T11A 1111FOWA• , •17�1i�r. NO WIN • • • • 1 • ! ■ ■ • • ! • • PAGE 84, I OF • RECORDS !■ OF COLLIER dipplWyAd pal • • . \ 1 . • . •ir! • • . • . 1 ALL THAT PART OF TRACT 116 TRACT 118 TRACT 119, TRACT 120, AND TRACT 121, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 22 A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7 PAGES 83 AND 84 PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: a r N O an M N M O O Q Words underlined are additions; words stmek- through are deletions BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Pa Packet Pg. 240 9.A.2.b BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 118; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT 118 AND TRACT 119, NORTH 00°29'58" WEST 479.95 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 89°30'56" WEST 645.95 FEET• THENCE NORTH 00°29'15" WEST 180.11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 116• THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 89°30'56" EAST 645.92 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AFOREMENTIONED TRACT 120; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT 120 AND TRACT 121, NORTH 00°29'58" WEST 495.16 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH Y2 OF TRACT 121; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF TRACT 121, NORTH 89°30'56" EAST 704.18 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF "PARCEL 183" AS DESCRIBED IN THAT ORDER OF TAKING AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3431, PAGE 495, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID "PARCEL 183", SOUTH 02017'42" EAST 165.14 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF "PARCEL 183" AS DESCRIBED IN THAT ORDER OF TAKING AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3431 PAGE 993 PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID "PARCEL 183" SOUTH 02°17'42" EAST 330.28 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF "PARCEL 181" AS DESCRIBED IN THAT ORDER OF TAKING AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3111, PAGE 500, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF "PARCEL 181" AND "PARCEL 180" OF ORDER OF TAKING AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3111 PAGE 500, SOUTH 02°17'42" EAST 503.85 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ORDER OF TAKING AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3111 PAGE 500 156.29 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,769.79 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°13158" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00°40'27" EAST 156.26 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 180"; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF AFOREMENTIONED TRACT 118, SOUTH 89°30'02" WEST 735.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 21.82 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. E 0 D a c d E a Words underlined are additions; words simek thrigugk are deletions BCHD I PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Pa Packet Pg. 241 EXHIBIT E BCHDICPUD DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC DEVIATION 1: Relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3., "Directory Signs", which permits Multiple -occupancy parcels or multiple parcels developed under a unified development plan, with a minimum of 8 independent units, and containing 20,000 square feet or more of leasable floor area shall be permitted 1 directory sign a maximum of 40 20 feet in height and a maximum of 1-09 200 square feet at one entrance on each public street, to instead allow a single directory sign where fewer than 8 independent units are developed under a unified plan. DEVIATION 2: Relief from LDC Section 6.06.01. — "Street System Requirements" and "Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right -of -Way Design Standards". The LDC establishes a minimum 60- foot right of way width for local streets. This deviation proposes to instead allow for private roads within the site to be located in a 50-foot wide access easement or Right -of -Way. DEVIATION 3: Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4. — "Buffer Requirements — Types of buffers", which requires a landscape buffer shall be required adjacent to any road right-of-way external to the development project and adjacent to any primary access roads internal to a commercial development. Said landscape buffer shall be consistent with the provisions of the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan, which is incorporated by reference herein. The minimum width of the perimeter landscape buffer shall vary according to the ultimate width of the abutting right- of -way. Where the ultimate width of the right- of -way is zero to 99 feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall measure at least ten feet in width. Where the ultimate width of the right-of-way is 100 or more feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall measure at least 15 feet in width. Developments of 15 acres or more and developments within an activity center shall provide a perimeter landscape Buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way. Activity center right-of-way buffer width requirements shall not be applicable to roadways internal to the development to instead allow installation of a 15 foot wide type 'B' buffer adjacent to the internal lake as shown on the conceptual PUD Master Plan. This deviation shall only aply applies to 4-the westernmost 361 feet of the westerly portion of the PUD (a.k.a. north 180 feet of Tract 116, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision), which is the single western parcel immediately abutting 4th ST. NE, is which was acquired on or before August 31, 2021, by the adjacent single-family homeowner to the north (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision). DEVIATION 4: Relief from LDC Section 5.05.08.F.2.b.ii.b) which requires proiects on corner lots to provide no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial building or project to be located between any primary facade and the abutting street, with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the required parking to instead allow a commercial project to provide 100 percent of the required parking between the Words underlined are additions; words siretek Mm9ugh are deletions BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Pa Packet Pg. 242 9.A.2.b Primary facade and abutting street when in support of a shopping center adjacent to Immokalee Road. 0 IL r N co LO N r M N M O O C a) E c.i r a Words underlined are additions; words smuek fhtettg# are deletions BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Pa Packet Pg. 243 9.A.2.b 2. 3 EXHIBIT F BCHD I CPUD DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is BCHD I Partners, LLC, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105. 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. MISCELLANEOUS a. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 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. C. Parking lot lighting shall be dark sky compliant (flat panel, full cut off fixtures— backlight, uplight and glare (BUG) rating where U = 0) to avoid light spill onto adjacent properties. Fixtures within 50- ft of residential properties along the PUD boundary shall be set at no higher than a 15-ft mounting height. Otherwise the site light poles shall not exceed a 25- ft mounting height. Light levels along the PUD boundary shall be limited to no more than 0.2-ft-candles along the joint property line where adjacent to residential property (i.e. not applicable to Immokalee Rd). d. All buildings shall be of similar architectural design and have similar design elements. TRANSPORTATION The total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not, exceed 681 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. Words underlined are additions; words seek thaw egk are deletions BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Pa Packet Pg. 244 H 5. b. Vehicular and Pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the south to allow access to all connection points with Immokalee Road, consistent with the conceptual PUD Master Plan, Exhibit C. The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross- access easement will be provided at time of the first Site Development Plan or Plat. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the developer or successors or assigns prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. C. Vehicular interconnection will be provided to the north consistent with the conceptual PUD Master Plan, Exhibit C. The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross- access easement will be provided at time of Site Development Plan for the commercial outparcel(s) north of the signalized entry road. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the developer or successors or assigns at the time the outparcel(s) is developed and completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. d. Sidewalks connecting to the Immokalee Road ROW shall be provided on both the north and south sides of the entrance road/ drive. ENVIRONMENTAL a. The CPUD shall be required to preserve 15% of native vegetation. 19.01 21.70 ± acres of native vegetation exists on -site requiring a minimum preservation of 2-.8& 3.26 ± acres (19.0121.70 x .15 = 2-8§3.26). A minimum of �-5 3.26 ± acres of native vegetation shall be retained on -site. b. A management plan for Florida Black Bear shall be submitted for review and approval at time of final plat or SDP for the project, whichever is applicable. LANDSCAPING Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07. In order to meet the LDC requirements for a Type 'B' buffer a 6 foot wide landscape buffer reservation has been identified on the Master Plan. In the event that the preserve does not meet buffer requirements after removal of exotics and supplemental planning within the preserve, plantings will be provided in the 6 foot wide reservation to meet the buffer requirements. The type, size, and number of such plantings, if necessary, will be determined at time of initial SDP or Plat and included on the landscape plans for the SDP or Plat. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. No adult orientated sales are permitted. b. Outdoor amplified sound shall be limited to areas labeled C on the Master Plan adjacent to Immokalee Road and at least 500 feet from adjacent western residential parcels. There will be no outdoor amplified sound between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. weekdays and 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. on weekends. C. There will be no outdoor dining adjacent to residential properties. Words underlined are additions; words wrtieJteratrgh are deletions &CHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Pa Packet Pg. 245 9.A.2.b Delivery bays shall not abut external residential development. e. All pole lighting shall be limited to flat full cutoff shields. All buildings shall be designed with unifying architectural design elements. g. No commercial structures will be constructed on the westerly portion of the PUD (a.k.a. north 180 feet of Tract 116, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision), which is the single western parcel immediately abutting 4th St, NE. This area will be used for native preservation, stormwater management or buffer areas only; however, the immediately adjacent single family homeowner to the north (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision) may establish a driveway for the sole benefit and exclusive use of that homeowner's residential property. There shall be no access to commercial uses within the CPUD from 4th St. NE. S-91hineudIdd th-e-The westernmost 361 feet of the westerly portion of the PUD (a.k.a. north 180 feet of Tract 116, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision), which is the single western parcel immediately abutting 4th ST. NE, bewas acquired by the property owner of the adjacent northern parcel (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision) on or before August 31, 2021, that and shall not be utilized for water management purposes and no buffers will be required on the northern, western and southern portions of that property. A 15 foot wide type V landscape buffer will be provided east of the acquired portion of the property adjacent to the western end of the proposed water management area as shown on the Master Plan. In, +"^ ^y^^* the sauth half ef TFaet 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 WbdiYiSien) On eF befBFe August 31, be pFevided peF the 6DG at time of SDP-. Owner will install chain link fencing around the lake as required by the LDC or Code of Laws and Ordinances at time of Site Development Plan approval. Words underlined are additions; words struck ihrettgh are deletions BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003428 Last Revised 31612023 Page Packet Pg. 246 ,OOZ= 6:31VOS 4 jf NOW W a� M vi N aW M Q 0 04 a% M 00 GVM:1331VAOWWI U W U LL Q O U C7 z W d N Q N W �U rtOQ M �m M O o M ro � Y (50 �0 4 N v m co w H IL Q H z U m O = a w 2 w Z W ❑ u) w 0 U LL _ LL _ W I j la I I o of LU l� (� I 3 m ¢W iI az as ❑- I I 0U CO ZII I Qo �Q ❑ ❑0 I i IZ�w N0 Wz aw I I awe aO QUO g a_ ? z V a N----------- --- ■� a II maw ❑ww 0 Ug w w p L�----------------- ----- w II zD �ww w I i W gm W > > Dww '� I DLL� Q a U) y I Z= I 90 m W ao � I F- I WCL o w w I + a — — =T=r 1 w `� C I a W 0 uj LLi 0 o J, A - 41 4 II j�z m co Q N III I I Imo+ _+= J _.�_—._.—. — — — — — — r . — . — . — . — . — . m I a LU a Of I LL w LL LL LL - m co wW m a LL 0-1 I I �< a Q M I n to a 0 00 ❑ U z U W z I 15 z J U I m J m z j W Q w¢ mQ a w¢ ui L — —1_ ° w� U)w aZ aw 00 mQ Uw m❑ �w w❑ w 9c H� wo ww w� wW w ❑ QW w v Ld w W W wM w �_ w❑ W m0 = LLl W _ m O m W aw a Q HV w d � LL rn - Z Z) m W Q 0 0 a z O c N N o is R — — — —'3-N 1332i1S H14 V o R o` In z K vUi zi z U w U K a z U m W W Q 2 o Z o°a N u�i M 7 LLI Z Z -- Zw 1. - W o a =- 9.A.2.d PENINSULA``./ ENGINEERING 1% Memorandum Date: February 3, 2023 To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM From: Christopher Scott, AICP RE: Immokalee Road -Estates Commercial Subdistrict GMPA/BCHD I PUDR (PL20220003426/PL20220003428) A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was conducted for the above referenced project on Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 5:30 pm at the OF/IFAS Extension, located at 14700 Immokalee Road. Approximately 20 individuals from the public attended the meeting (see attached sign -in sheet). The meeting was simultaneously conducted through Zoom. Individuals associated with the project team that were in attendance included the following: • Christopher Scott, Peninsula Engineering • Noel J. Davies, Davies Duke, PLLC • Eric Mallory, Metro Commercial Chris Scott opened the meeting at 5:38 pm and provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the details of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development Rezoning. Following the presentation, the meeting was opened to attendees for comments and questions. The following is a summary of the questions asked, and comments made, by the attendees and responses given by the project team. Question/Comment: (John Pelletier, 2961 4th St NE). It's great to see this many people here for this meeting; two years ago there were only three people. Couple things ... what was meant by "fewer trips?" Response: The original PUD was approved for 200,000 sf of commercial floor area. When a PUD application is submitted they are required to submit a traffic study to analyze how many trips would be created. The approved TIS with this PUD used 200,000 sf of a commercial shopping center to determine how many trips would be generated. We're now revising the PUD from 200,000 sf of total commercial floor area to specify 130,000 sf of indoor self -storage floor area, which is already a permitted use, and 100,000 sf of other commercial floor area. Since the storage use is such a low traffic generator, the proposed amendment will result in fewer trips than what was originally approved. We're not proposing to change the trip cap that was established as part of the approved PUD. PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 1 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 packet Pg. 248 9.A.2.d PENINSULA,, ENGINEERING 4 My only request, is that if you have to redo this Master Concept Plan, is that you provide more buffering where it is adjacent to the Estates lot. I know it says Type B, but I would recommend adding some three palms between the trees and hedge that are required. The 47-acres has four-story apartment buildings going in and I just wanted something so I wasn't looking directly at them. There is a Site Development Plan application already in for the self -storage. We are not proposing any changes to the buffers as part of this application. The Collier County LDC requires a Type B buffer, which is one of the more intense buffers in this location. This buffer is 15-feet wide and includes a five foot hedge with trees spaced 25 feet on center. For clarification, the four-story apartments are part of the development to the south known as Randall Curve MPUD. Question/Comment: (Freddie Brantley, 3357 Mystic River Dr) Are the four-story apartments three stories over parking or four living floors? Response: (Chris Scott) My understanding is that is four living floors, but that is a separate project. Question/Comment: (Chad Everett) I have a couple questions. I know you say this is two separate developments, but we consider this all one project. First of all, are there two storage facilities planned or just one? This extra land, we call it "creep." It keeps creeping north. What is that road that goes to the north? Are you going to provide another road coming in and off of Immokalee Road? Response: (Chris Scott) I'm only aware of the self -storage facility within this (BCHD) development. In regards to the arrow on the Master Concept Plan, that points to the north. Collier County's Growth Management Plan required interconnection to adjacent properties, even if they aren't developed just to minimize the number of curb cuts going onto arterial roadways. This amendment continues to allow for that interconnection; it won't be made unless something to the north develops and wants to connect. Question/Comment: (Chad Everett) What is so important about adding these 2 additional acres? What are you going to do if you don't get approved? Response: The purpose of this addition is to allow the commercial area north of the entrance at Orangetree to allow for a more developable lot. The existing commercial site has preserve on the west side and is required to provide access through the lot to adjacent properties to the north. The additional land will allow for the commercial lot to be reconfigured to make it more developable. If the Amendment does not get approved, then development would need to meet the current development standards and fit within the approved commercial area. It is a net increase of 0.12-acres of commercial based on the acreages shown on the approved MCP. (Chad Everett) When does this commercial expansion stop? We need to stop this creep. I'm personally against this and will do everything I can to stop it. PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 2 Packet Pg. 249 9.A.2.d PENINSULA,, ENGINEERING 4 Question/Comment: (Ty Vigil, 180 33rd Ave NE) As a commercial realtor, I'm in favor of development but it needs to be smart. The County just approved a transitional use plan and there should be appropriate flow from commercial to residential. We love the rural attributes of the Estates. Since these properties have been cleared, we're experiencing more wildlife in our areas. I'm for development just against this type. It should be developed but there's too much traffic and the apartments aren't even here yet. There are already crosses on the road and now more people will need to cross Immokalee to get to school. It doesn't meet the county resolution on transitional uses; it doesn't flow right ... it goes commercial to residential. So, I don't really have a question, but I just have that statement to be recorded. Response: (Chris Scott) I will note that the location of the preserve and stormwater ponds are intended to provide a transition from the commercial development to the adjacent Estates properties. (Ty Vigil) There is damage to trees from where the property has been cleared and who replaces that. And someone will need to inspect and remove invasives. In this current form, I'm not against development, but I'm against this. Question/Comment: (Judy Womelsdorf, 3214 Brookeview Court) How much of the land is wetlands? Response: (Chris Scott) I don't have that information in front of me. The application includes environmental analysis and the preserve area being added has a considerable amount of wetlands. Any development that occurs, in regards to wetlands impacts, will need state and/or federal approval. (Judy Womelsdorf, 3214 Brookeview Court) Any wetland credits that are purchased for impacts go to the center of the state and don't help the local wildlife, flora and fauna. That's one concern I have with the request. I think the whole area was wetlands and I don't think they should be destroyed. Questions/Comment: (Dick Brewer, 2871 4t" St NE) What type of buffer is provided on the southwest corner of the property between the commercial area and the adjacent Estates property. Right now from my front yard I can see all the way to Immokalee Road so I would like to some buffer so I don't see commercial buildings. Response: (Chris Scott) There is a 15-foot wide Type B buffer, as required by County Code, on the western boundary. That buffer includes trees spaced 25-feet on center and a five-foot tall hedge. The southern boundary is also a Type B buffer where it abuts residential uses and a 10-foot wide Type A buffer where it abuts other commercial uses. Question/Comment: (Name not provided) Have you cleared out all of the trees up to the boundary already? There are no trees on your side there currently where it backs up to a red barn. Response: (Chris Scott) The development has to meet stormwater requirements and get an Environmental Resource Permit approval from South Florida Water Management PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 3 Packet Pg. 250 9.A.2.d PENINSULA,, ENGINEERING 4 District. In order to construct the required perimeter berms to make sure that stormwater remains on site, that area has been cleared. That buffer area will be planted in the future. Will there be a wall? (Chris Scott) I'm not sure about the specifics for the storage development; the LDC does not require a wall at this location and it was not a requirement of the PUD. (Eric Mallory) There is not a wall proposed with the storage building. Question/Comment: (Dan Brett, 6920 241" Ave NE) Have they submitted for a traffic light at the entrance (Chris Scott) There is an existing traffic signal at the main entrance from Immokalee Road at Orangetree Boulevard. That is the only access to the site. It was already approved and there is no request to change that with this application. There is no access to 4t" Street. The development will provide the required interconnection to the north and the south. Question/Comment: (Name not provided) It looks like they are doing some type of changes in there on Immokalee Road further south of the Orangetree Boulevard. (Chris Scott) Those improvements are associated with the adjacent PUD and I do not have details. You could check with Collier County to verify what improvements and access are required and approved for that development. Question/Comment: (Ty Vigil) Modify my comments a little bit in regards to C-1 through C-3 is a broad term of uses. Nursing and professional care and medical could help with the area. When we see carwashes and laboratories and self -storage and warehousing it leaves us a little uncomfortable. Not opposed to development, just do it smart. Jobs would make sense as commercial would help make self-sustaining communities as we head east. If there are jobs in medical, then that would make sense. Some uses are an emphatic no. Response: (Chris Scott) This amendment is primarily to reconfigure the commercial areas. It is not proposing to change any of the permitted uses that have already been approved for the development. Question/Comment: (Chad Everett) Can't you remove uses with this amendment? Since the developer wants more, why don't you make some concessions. Self -storage isn't needed. Bill told me this was going to be a medical place and now I hear about storage uses. Response: (Eric Mallory) I'll tell you where we're at. We have a range of uses, but its not done; people are still in their due -diligence period. With price increases, things can change. The property along Immokalee (bottom right) is actually two outparcels which will include a potential McDonalds at the intersection and then a larger outparcel below that is planned to be a medial office building. The southwest commercial area is proposed to be a self -storage; and there is only one self -storage between this PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 4 Packet Pg. 251 9.A.2.d PENINSULA,, ENGINEERING 4 development and the adjacent PUD. North of the storage is another medical office building. There are two medical office buildings planned here. The northern C is why we are amending the PUD. We want to square up that lot and want to do a small shopping center. The deviation will allow parking up front. That is really all we are asking for. Our project is relatively small and discreet. Question/Comment: (No name provided) There was supposed to be a shopping center on Randall on the west side for a Publix and CVS. Why are we going to build another one here? Response: (Eric Mallory) I don't know anything about the shopping center you're talking about. This is a relatively small center. For example, a Publix is approximately 55,000 sf; the total square footage we're talking about here is 35,000 sf at most. It is a community shopping center that is likely to be anchored by a hardware store and a small one at that. A Home Depot or Lowes is approximately 100,000 sf. This is not that scale. This is to serve the community and we don't have any other retail proposed. Question/Comment: (No name provided) And no one seems to know anything about this 450 apartments. A couple years ago it was supposed to be a retirement community. Now we don't know if they're low rent apartment, cheaper or whatever. Is there any way to know what is going on? Response: (Eric Mallory) That developer is the Davis Group and it is a different developer. Question/Comment: (Ty Vigil) As you are explaining this, it is growing on me a smidge. I would just say we don't want nightlife. We are ok with hardware ... we just don't want that restaurant that is open until 2 am? Response: (Chris Scott) In looking at the Zoom chat, the only question is how to obtain a copy of the presentation. My contact information was on the letter and feel free to reach out to me and I'll send you a copy. Question/Comment: (Woody Brula, 2393 Orchard St) Are you the group that I got a draft of a lawsuit regarding the lot line? From what I'm reading is when they laid down the lots they put it in the wrong place. Response: (Eric Mallory) That is not this law firm, but it is from this developer. The monuments were in the wrong place. So from 4t" Street to Immokalee there is 30' missing. (Chris Scott) That affects all lots between 4t" Street and Immokalee. There was a surveying error when they were first putting down those roads from the original Golden Gate plat. The canal that is to the west is 30' larger than it should be and the land between 4tn and Immokalee is 30' smaller. That is a separate matter that isn't a part of this application. Question/Comment: (Judy Womelsdorf, 3214 Brookeview Ct) My biggest concern is the traffic. Getting out is difficult and if there was an emergency. What you have to go through just to get to Publix is awful. I don't see anyone ever addressing traffic. PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 5 Packet Pg. 252 9.A.2.d PENINSULAZO� ENGINEERING (Chad Everett) I made this point last time and no one cares. The commissioners don't care about traffic; they don't live out here. We want this to stop; we don't want it to reach Oil Well. My goal is to stop this. The bears that live in this area; we now have four bear families living in our area. I understand what you're trying to do, but we need to stop it. Question/Comment: (No name given) Between Valencia Trail and Shadowlawn; its Peninsula and it's called N- Square or Immokalee Square. It's another apartment project — hundreds of apartments. Response: (Chris Scott) That is a separate project. If there are no more questions regarding this application, then we will adjourn the meeting. The meeting is adjourned. PL20220003426/PL20220003428 BCHD I PUDR NIM Summary Page 6 Packet Pg. 253 9.A.2.e PENINSULA`,- ENGINEERING September 15, 2022 Collier County Growth Management Department Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: BCHD I CPUD PUD Amendment - PL20220003428 1' Review To Whom It May Concern, The following have been included for your review and approval: 1. Cover Letter 2. Completed Addressing Checklist 3. Pre -Application Meeting Notes 4. PUDA Application 5. Affidavit of Authorization 6. Property Ownership Disclosure Form 7. Covenant of Unified Control 8. Recorded Warranty Deed 9. List and Map of Property Owners 10. Current Aerial/Location Map 11. Boundary Survey 12. Narrative and Evaluation Criteria 13. Completed Exhibits A-F (Revised PUD Document) 14. Revised MCP 15. Environmental Data 16. Letter of No Impact TIS Waiver 17. Current PUD (Ord. 2021-020) 18. Companion Immokalee Road / Estates Commercial Subdistrict GMPA (PL20220003426) Please feel free to contact me at (239) 403-6727 or by email at cscott@pen-eng.com should you have any questions or require additional information. Sin*1y,Ch Scott, AICP Planning Manager 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 254 9.A.2.e Cori-ier County Growth Management Department ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliercountyfl.gov or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the address listed below. This form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to the pre -application meeting. Please allow 3 business days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold 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) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use Permit) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIN (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat) ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑✓ OTHER PUDA LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) S22 T48 R27 Unit 22 FOLIO (Property ID) Number(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 37698580002 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right-of-way • SURVEY (copy — only needed for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP or AR or PL # Addressing Checklist (Rev 12/2021) Page 1 of 2 Operations & Regulatory Management Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.coll iercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 255 9.A.2.e Co yer County Growth Management Department Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application, indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: DEmail Applicant Name: Kim Davidson Phone: (239) 403-6807 ❑Personally picked up Email: kdavidson@pen-eng.com 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 i ••: :Ills Approved by: ot 7-k Date: Updated by: Date: 4/27/2022 IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR A NEW FORM SUBMITTED. Addressing Checklist (Rev 12/2021) Page 2 of 2 Operations & Regulatory Management Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.coll iercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 256 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Site Parcel No 37698580002 Address Site City NAPLES *Disclaimer 9.A.2.e Site Zone *Note 34120 Name / Address HERRERA, LAZARO A=& ELIZABETH 9661 SW 102ND AVENUE RD City MIAMI State I FL I Zip 33176-2734 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3C22 33250012113C22 22 48 27 2.73 Legal GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 22 S 165 FT OF TR 121 LESS THAT PORTION FOR R/W 1AS DESC IN OR 3111 PG 485. Ila a Area O 285 Sub./Condo 332500 - GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 22 Use Code o 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentialitv) Date Book -Page Amount 01/27/97 2276-560 $ 7,500 Milla a Rates O *Calculations School Other Total 4.889 1 8.7793 1 13.6683 2021 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Channel Land Value $ 62,790 +) Improved Value $ 0 (_) Market Value $ 62,790 (-) 10% Cap $ 28,262 (_) Assessed Value $ 34,528 (_) School Taxable Value $ 62,790 (_) Taxable Value $ 34,528 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Packet Pg. 257 9.A.2.e MAP 5r2E SMALL I MMIUM I L e.E if Introduction Search for Parcels by Search Results Parcel ID: 37698580002 Name: HERRERA, LAZARO A=& ELIZABETH Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 121 / 1 r Map . 4 Layers 40 Legend 40 Print Aerial Photography: January - 2022 Urban [61N] - 2022 Rural [2FT] - 2022 Rural [10FT] - 2022 Rural [SOFT] 0 d Packet Pg. 258 Co er County 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.coliiercountyfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: PUDA with GMPA Companion DateandTime: Tuesday 6/7/22 - 9:00 AM - ZOOM Mtg. GMPA - Rachel Hansen Assigned Planner: PUDA - Nancy Gundlach Engineering Manager jfor PPL's and FP'sj: iY C a. r Project Information p PL20220003428-BCHD37698520004,37698580002(PUDA) v Project NamePL20220003426-Immokalee Rd Estates Commercial Subdist. (GMPA) am, N PL #: See above M 0 addin a CD Propertyll3#: 37698580002-New Current Zoning: HCHD I CPUD -New Es�ates Parce: N 0 Project Address: City: Iva 1es State; FL Zip• 34120 a Applicant: Kim Davidson, Peninsula Engineering00 Agent Name: Christopher Scott,AICP Phone: 239-403-6700 Agent/Firm Address: 2600 Golden Gate PKWYCity.Naples Property Owner: Herrera, Lazaro A. & Elizabeth State: FL N _Zip: 39105 r0 .Q a Q 0 Please provide the following, if applicable: c I. Total Acreage: 2 .73 E s ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: r iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: E E iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: C� � c� V. if there is an ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the a type and number; 2 J L I vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 1/12/2021 Page I 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 259 9.A.2.e cod i7 r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.ColliercountyjL o►t (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes, additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app 4 13 K rf r,%s ZLl L L I1.-c 19 r -e.G 7- If Site is within the City of Naples Water Service Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then, if the petition is submitted, we are to send it (by email) to the four persons below in their Utilities and Planning Depts. - along with a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton RMiddleton(7naplesgoy.com Allyson Holland AMHollandC7a, napiesgoy.com Robin Singer RSinger@naplesgov.com Erica Martin emartinCa�naylesgov.com Disclaimer., Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application: Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 2 of 5 N Co LO N C O r R v .Q a 0 E a E a Packet Pg. 260 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountVfl.goy (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes 0 D Ca(] iP P14,kv ruC '�--h-rlJ �n�riG . ✓tfvn-r 0 C4,PF Li L i �u fz ` i W "L,Y2.1 `e_ :� L I� C1 Q ►+i .+ 1 a:V — b e � , Y . elh�ed,IlL,.fis — 3EP1 ._ 3.1 `8_ 5 t b try--+•� �. � i �e � - _ r �L1 �� LrL �-1 �� l..r f l � 5 — � �,v,� �1�-e.� D`*'. �i,ti� �L�.s-�-� C_' �•.rr f� i s�� P•t�:� Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Disclaimer.- Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Cade and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 261 9.A.2.e ThomasClarkeVEN From: AshtonHeidi Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2022 9:19 AM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Cc: GundlachNancy Subject: Pre-App h for PUDA to BCHD 37698520004,37698580002 (PUDA) - PL20220003428 bt'i eS Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Thomas, o Please add this to the pre-app notes: a Please label the offsite access easement to the south on the master plan with OR Book and Page reference. Thank you! F-Kdr ASIItovwCi.eleo N N MAIL OLVtZ3 Asslstavut CokvutlJi AaorKtd N OoC o f the COIdWrvt,to AttOJ �6 d 29,00 North F- orseshoe ArWe, S"cte 301 04 00 Naply-S, F-L 3410+ � (239) 252-$'j3 N Under Florida Law. e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. o c m E U r r Q c a� E c� Q Packet Pg. 262 9.A.2.e ThomasClarkeVEN From: KlopfParker Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2022 10:19 AM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Cc: SaboJames Subject: RE: Pre-App Research for PUDA to BCHD 37698520004,37698580002 (PUDA) - PL20220003428 & Companion (GMPA)-Immokalee Rd Estates Commercial Subdist.(GMPA) PL20220003426 Comp Planning. Notes: According the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) the subject property that is proposed to be added to the existing o Immokalee Road Estates Commercial subdistrict is located within the Residential Estates. The applicant has proposed a a reconfiguration of the existing master plan subdistrict to increase the size of the existing commercial tracts with no increase in the intensity of the uses allowed to permit. Since the identified parcel was outside of the existing subdistrict o x a GMPA will be required to include it. Please address the following objective 5 and policies 7.1,7.3, & 7.6 M Parker Klopf C:oWer C.c)u " cY Collier County Growth Management Department Senior Planner 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Direct line: (239) 252-2471 Parker.klopf@colliercountvfl.gov Visit our Webiste ot: WWW.COL LIERCQUNTYFL.GOV Tell us how ive are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http:Ait. lylCoIIierZoning. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request. do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Information contained in this email is subject to verification by the Zoning Manager and/or Planning Director; if this information is being used as a basis for the purchase/lease of a property or as a guide for the design of a project, it is recommended that a Zoning Verification Letter or Zoning Certificate Application is submitted to zoning services. Applications for a Zoning Verification Letter can be found here: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=69624 Zoning Certificate applications can be found here: htt s: www.colliercount fl. ov our- overnment divisions-f- r ❑ erations-re ulator -mana ement zonin -or-land-use-a lication zonin -other-land-use-a lications . From: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@ col Iiercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:08 PM To: Ashton Heidi rHeidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Beard Laurie <Laurie.Beard@coliiercountyfl.gov>; BrownCraig Craig.Brown@colliercountyfl.gova; CookJaime <Jaime.Cook@colliercountyfl.gov>; CrotteauKathynell <Kathynell.Crotteau@cot Iiercountyfl.gov>; PerryDerek < Derek. Perry@ coIIiercountyfl.gov>; 0rtmanEric Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl.gov>; Faulkner5ue Sue.Faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov>; CastroGabrieia a Packet Pg. 263 9.A.2.e ThomasClarkeVEN From: SawyerM ichael Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2022 9:27 AM To: ThomasClarkeVEN; GundlachNancy; HansenRachel; Klop€Parker Subject: BCHD PUDA and GMPA pre app meeting Thomas, Please provide the following pre app meeting notes: For this petition request please provide a letter of no impact TI5 Waiver; separate letter on letterhead requesting the waiver based on no additional transportation impacts. Please include a brief outline of proposed changes, confirm no additional development impacts and the current trip cap will be retained. Please let us know of any questions -concerns. Respectfully, Michael Sawyer J Project Manager a Transportation Management Services Department CO Transportation Planning V, 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 C 0 239-252-2926 M michael.sawyerCrvcolliercoun tl. ov g— `2 .Q Q. Q 0 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a 2 c E public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. s c� Q c m E c� r Q Packet Pg. 264 9.A.2.e ThomasClarkeVEN From: Beard Laurie Sent- Tuesday, June 07, 2022 9:00 AM To: GundiachNancy Cc: ThomasGarkeVEN Subject: Pre-Appi!cation Meeting PL20220003428 - PUDA to BCHD 37698520004, 37698580002 (PUDA) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I have nothing for this one. Laurie Beard Project Manager Please note new address: PUD Monitoring, GMD 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Ft_ 34104 Laurie.Beard@CollierCountyFL.gov Phone:(239)-252-5782 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. r Q Packet Pg. 265 9.A.2.e ThomasClarkeVEN From: BrownCraig Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 2:19 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: BCHD PUDA GMPA Immokalee RD Estates Attachments: PUDZ-PUDA checklist FOR REVIEWERS 2-2017.doc; Environmental data Checklist updated December 2016.doc Thomas, Here are the revised notes for this one... Thanks! Please provide Environmental Data: Please provide FLUCFCS aerial map of the subject property please include the invasive exotic plant percentage amounts and indicate which FLUCFCS are being considered Native Vegetation. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location, and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on -site. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land. preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. Please provide a current Listed species survey, which should include listed plants for the subject property. Provide supporting exhibits (i.e. Panther zones ect.) be sure to include Black Bear, and Florida Bonneted Bat as part of the evaluation. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on -site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03. 4. Provide calculations on -site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off -site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.13-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07,H.1.d-e). Please clarify that the GMP will still be requesting 15% preservation versus the required 25% preservation. (ISM preservation .) If required, based on FLUCFCS and historical activities. Please provide environmental data to show suonort for the new area of preservation. The new areservation area must be equal or greater ecological value versus the existing approved selected preservation area . 5. Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1 and Objective 7.1. 6. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation requirements and minimizes impacts to listed species as required in the CCME. 7. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. (if found onsite). S. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts., if applicable. 9. The property is located in the Well Field Protection zone please address compliance with LDC Section 3.06.00. 0 a 0 x U m co N M O O O N N O N J a N co r LO N c 0 M .Q a a 0 c a� E ca a r c m E z U 2 r Q Packet Pg. 266 9.A.2.e Please Check off $2500 Environmental Data Fee. Craig Brown Principal Environmental Specialist Development Review Division (239) 252-2548. How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! _ o Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a a public records request. do not send electronic mail to this entity Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. o V ca 00 N M O O O N N O N J IL N O T_ N Packet Pg. 267 9.A.2.e Environmental PllDZ-PUTDA Checklist (non-RFMU) ProjectName PteM Ta �CNb pGZGzzoa��SczYa 6 MnA l�G (CFi l] �LZirZ�.r�crG aj�i Loa 1. Is the project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties? (CON, ST, PUD, RLSA, RFMU, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) Not in CV Library 2. Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay -P627 3. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on a] l plans. (LDC 3.05.07.H.1). Preserve Label- P546 4. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. p amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off -site- Exclude vegetation located within utility a and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H. l .d-e). Preserve r Calculation - P547 C x t� 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H.1.b. Preserve 00 Width - P603 N 6. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, M O O N be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site c preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) Preserve Selection- P550 cm a 7. Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory N structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be i permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. v stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross -sections for each preserve boundary identifying all o site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) Preserve Setback — New M 8. Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required, when so warranted. (LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) a Listed Species - P522 0 9. Provide Environmental Data identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off -site r c preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required — P 522 Q 10. PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2 ) c Master Plan Contents-P626 M 11. If the PUD includes a Preserve Tract section UP FOR DISCUSSION — DISCUSS WITH CAO Q When listing preserve uses, the following is suggested: A. Principal Use: Preserve; B. Accessory Uses: All other uses (list as applicable or refer to the LDC — see 1-3 below as typical uses listed by agents) (ensure Cite text states "subject to LDC section related to Allowable uses within County required preserves" Alternate format: A_ Uses subject to LDC section Allowable uses within County required preserves: 1. Nature trails that do not reduce the amount of required preserve. 2. Passive Recreation uses, as per LDC requirements. 3. Stormwater only when in accordance with the LDC. Packet Pg. 268 9.A.2.e PUD Commitments and Site Plan notes Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document or master plan: Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E,1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 12. PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2.) Unique Features- P628 Example: A management plan for the entire project shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the LDC for listed species including but not Iimited to Black Bear, Gopher Tortoise and listed birds. The management plan shall be submitted prior to development of the first phase of the project. 13. Review cross -sections if provided; they are not required with the PUD. However, sometimes they are provided. a Is there any fill proposed in the preserve? Additional Comments: �+'� Packet Pg. 269 9.A.2.e Environmental Data Checklist r- Project Name -ro P°-tk0 The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT? Preparation of Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the protect area as it exists in its pre -development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site, provide a topographic map to a half foot and, where possible, provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site. For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3,04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the tx a 0 x U m 00 N M 0 0 0 N N O N J a N ao i N 0 CU 0. a Q 0 c m E s Q c m E s 0 Q 7A-4a'e- Packet Pg. 270 9.A.2.e location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 10. For sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation, provide documentation that the parcel(s) were issued a pen -nit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation that the parcels) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GM-P. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06. 11. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on -site. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05,07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off -site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on -site, demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans, a location map(s) and property identification number(s) of the off -site parcel(s) if off -site donation of land is to occur. 14. Provide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields (crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas), golf courses, landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 1 10 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure (SDP) FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted. The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. D a 0 x U GO 06 N M 0 0 0 N N 0 N J a N 0 i N 0 M Q a Q 0 m E s Q c m E s 0 Q �•1_G Packet Pg. 271 9.A.2.e 17. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. 18. Where applicable, provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. 19. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans. For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern -Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. 22. For multi -slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 24. The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) a. Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. b. ExpIain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the GMP. c. ExpIain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. d. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. 25. PUD zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26_ Is EAC Review (by CCPC) required? Q �, Packet Pg. 272 9.A.2.e 27. PUD master plan or PPLISDP site plan notes: Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 28. Additional comments 29. Stipulations for approval (Conditions) 0 a Packet Pg. 273 Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountyff.gov (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL# PL20220003428 - PUDA PL20220003426 - GMPA Collier County Contact Information: 9.A.2.e Name Review Discipline Phone Email Maggie Acevedo North Collier Fire 252-2309 macevedo@northcollierfire.com I_l Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercount I. ov Shar A.Beddow MSM/Deputy Fire Marshal - Greater Naples Fire 241-1422 sbeddow@gnfire.org _ Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Laurie Beard PU❑ Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov H idi Ashton Clcko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Thomas Clarke Zoning Operations Analyst 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov Jamie Cook Development Review Director 252-6290 Jaime.cook@colliercountyfl.gov G Gabriela Castro Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gabriela.castro@colliercountyfl.gov I —I Maggie DeMeo North Collier Fire 252-2308 pdemeo@northcollierfire.com then Utility Planning 252- 1c A(P:e.i @ c a iiercounWLgov r=� Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov Sue Faulkner GMP - Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov LI Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@col liercount I. ❑v L.1 Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov L1 Cormac Giblin, AICP Development Review -Planning Manager 252-5095 Cormac.giblin@colliercountyfl.gov V Nancy Gundlach, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfi.gov 1_I Rachel Hansen GMP— Corn prehensive Planning 252-1142 Rachel. hansen@col Iiercoun fLgov I_I Richard Henderlong Zoning Principal Planner 252-2464 rich ard.hen derlang@colliercountyfl. ov I_I John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houidsworth@colliercountyfl.gov Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfi.gov Anita Jenkins Planning & Zoning Director 252-5095 1 Anita.jenkins@colliercountyfl.gov I i Jo n Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 1 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov I Parker Klopf GMP— Comprehensive Planning 252-2471 Parker.kiopf@colliercountyfl.gov Troy Komarowski North Collier Fire 252-2521 tkomarowski@northcoliierfire.com _I Sean Lintz North Collier Fire 597-9227 slintz@northcollierfire.com Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 252-8243 diane.lynch @colIiercountyfLgov I. 1 Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@coiliercountyfl.gov 11 Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 1 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 4 of 5 rr 0 d Packet Pg. 274 Coder Count COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountyfl.aav (239) 252-2400 9.A.2.e Matt McLean, P.E. Division Director - IF, CPP & PM 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov LI Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-S092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov LJ Eric Ortman Zoning Principal Planner 252-1032 Eric. Ortrna n @ col I iercountyf Lgov L Derek Perry Assistant County Attorney 252-8066 Derek.perry@colliercountyfl.gov Brandi Pollard Utility Impart fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colIiercountyfl.gov IJ Todd Rig all North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com El Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov James Sabo, AICP GMP, Comp Planning Manager 252-2708 L Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2925 _Lames.sabo@colhercountyfl.gov I Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 -michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov Ll Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfl.gov Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@coliiercountyfl.gov LI Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfi.gov Connie Thomas Client Services Supervisor 252-6369 Consuela.thomas@coiliercountyfl.gov Jessica Velasco Client Services 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov 1-1 Ion Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 ionathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov .I Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten-wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov 1 Christine Willoughby Development Review - Zoning 1 252-5748 1 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfi.gov Daniel 2unzunegui North Collier Fire 1 252-2310 Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl. ov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email ,4r( .T ks a✓ pw .L� CLx "O ,v C L[.i q,� Updated 1/12/2021 Page j 5 of 5 Co,e c 0 U Q a Q c a� E z U M Q E z U a Packet Pg. 275 9.A.2.e a Participants (17) -, Find a participant thomas clarke (Host, me) Chris Scott 7-o 2--Z - 39 CorbySchmidt. MCP. Principal Planner Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner Austin Hoy,%;ell BLayman MCraig 6roa+,n a Dan DanielZunzunegui ® Eric Mallory © EricOrtman Heidi Cicko James Sabo, Comp Planning Manager Parker Klopf. Senior Planner Ray Bellows. Zoning Manager sawyermichael aD'Naters W 0 IL r 0 x U 00 ao N IV M O O O N N O N J d N CO i N C O R V Q 0 c a� E t Q c m E r a Packet Pg. 276 9.A.2.e Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division Applicant/Agent may also send site plans or conceptuai plans for review in advance if desired. PL20220003428— BCHD 37698520004 37698580002 PLIDA — Nancy Gundlach PL20220003426 — Immokalee Rd Estates Commercial Subdist. GMPA - Rachel Hansen STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION ■ Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request Kim Davidson, Peninsula Engineering. 239-403-6700 a • Agent to list for PL# Christopher Scott, AICP, Peninsula Engineering • Owner of property (all owners for all parcels) BCHD Partners I, LLC — Owner/Contract Purchaser of parcels 37698440003, 37698480005, 37698360002, 37698520004and 37698580002 John W Themel — owner of parcel 37698360109 • Confirm Purpose of Pre -A r_ p pp: {Rezone, etc.] 0 GMP Amendment and PUD Amendment Q • Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that Q apply): ❑ c as No changes to existing PUD entitlement of 200,000 sf of gross commercial floor area (Ord. 2021-20). E • Details about Project: Q GMPA/PUDA to add +2.73-acre parcel (37698580002) to north of existing P U D Boundary and update the a E Master Concept Plan in order to reconfigure developable footprint and preserve areas. Q REQUIRED Supplemental information provided by: Name: Kim Davidson Title: Project Permit Coordinator Email: kdavidson@pen-eng.com Phone: 239-403-6807 Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Danny Condomina-Client Services Supervisor dann .condomina colliercount I Phone: 239-252-6866 Zoning DPAsion • 28W North Hotses hoe Drive - Naples; F"a 34104. 230-252-2400-www.cdlergw.net Packet Pg. 277 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.coliiercounty_go 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 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 9.A.2.e 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 p application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to a each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at r htt www.colliercount fl, ov Home ShowDocument?id=76983. o T REQUIREMENTS 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 latestversion) 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 T 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 ❑PT Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLU CFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 } ❑ Statement of Utility Provisions 1Er ❑ 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 — Rt vui b +�_' CZrt o,,- e, r No i;4Rkr 'T,s U. uu'e, 1 Historical Survey 1 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable Electronic copy of all required documents 1 ❑ Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)' ❑ ❑ List of requested deviations from the LDtwith justificption far eac h (this document is separate from Exhibit E) -j ❑ ❑ �/ Checklist _ues next pag March 4, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 278 Cofer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www. co I I i erco a nty. gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 9.A.2.e Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 %" x 11" copy ❑ ED ❑ Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24" x 36" - Only if Amending the PUD ❑ lam' ❑ 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: E6c_F4W Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (Director) Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee water/Sewer District: ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director N I Other; �,k,,4w:7 i >~-�- - ,�,Gl� U�i►�-7 City of Naples Utilities 01 Other; 1 ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION I Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 PA-41 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 AND Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre t��mprehensive 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: N� - — �.x 1 rr.� aF M`` �"'`�" T Tl s t /AL/,e t- o Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. a Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 March 4, 2020 Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 279 9.A.2.e Co*ier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.coliiercou nty.go� Legal Advertising Fees: ;�CIPC: $1,125.00 BCC: $500.00 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 qKSchool Concurrency Fee, if applicable: - o Mitigation Fees, if application, to he determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans review Fees are not listen 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/appiicant for this petition, I attest that al! 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 5' and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Printed named of signing party Date March 4, 2020 Page 11 of 1 i Packet Pg. 280 Coder County 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff 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): BCHD Partners I, LLC Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address: 2600 Golden Gate Pkwycity: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34105 Telephone: Cell: _ Fax: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Christopher Scott, AICP and Noel J. Davies Firm: Peninsula Engineering, Inc. and Davies Duke, PLLC Address: 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy city: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34105 Telephone: 239-403-6727 Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: CScott@pen-eng.com and Noel.Davies@DaviesDuke.com Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. March 4, 2020 Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 281 9.A.2.e Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 t,EZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: Estates (E) and BCHD 1 CPUD Zoning district(s) to the BCHD I Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Commercial Original PUD Name: BCHD I CPUD Ordinance No.: Ord. 2021-20 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: 22 48� 27E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 Metes & Bounds Description: See Boundary Survey Plat Book: 7 Size of Property: Page #: 83 84 Property I.D. Number: ft. x ft. = Address/ General Location of Subject Property: one-half mile north of Randall Boulevard Total Sq. Ft. Acres: West side of Immokalee Road, approximately PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): ❑■ Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Community Facilities ❑ Mixed Use ❑ Other: ❑ Industrial March 4, 2020 Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 282 CO&T County 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N E, Estates Residential and Undeveloped S Randall Curve MPUD Commercial/Residential and Undeveloped E Orange Tree MPUD Residential and Undeveloped W E, Estates Residential and Undeveloped 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: N� N� NA Lot: NA Block: NA Subdivision: NA Plat Book: NA Page #: NA Property I.D. Number: NA Metes & Bounds Description: NA 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: Orange Tree Homeowners Association Mailing Address: PO Box 855 City: Bonita Springs State: FL Name of Homeowner Association: Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Mailing Address: PO Box 990596 City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34133 ZIP: 34116 Name of Homeowner Association: Valencia Lakes at Orange Tree Homeowners Association Mailing Address: 11691 Gateway Blvd, Suite 203 Name of Homeowner Association: City: Fort Myers State: FL ZIP: 33913 Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: March 4, 2020 Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 283 9.A.2.e Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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. March 4, 2020 Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 284 9.A.2.e Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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? PL20160000221 - Immokalee Road - Estates Commercial Subdistrict GMPA (approved by Ord 2021-019) PL20200000546 - BCHD I CPUD (approved by Ord 2021-020); PL20220003426 proposed GMPA 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. a 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 Drocessine or otherwise activelv Dursue the rezonine. 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. March 4, 2020 Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 285 Coder County 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 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 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 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. ❑ 0 ❑ 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 March 4, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 286 CO&T County 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 %" x 11" copy ❑ 0 ❑ Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24" x 36" — Only if Amending the PUD ❑ ❑ ❑ Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 0 ❑ Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 ❑ 0 *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: El School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ElConservancy 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: ❑ I City of Naples Utilities ❑ Other: 4SSOCIATED 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 March 4, 2020 Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 287 Coder County 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 Ll 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 5' and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee Signature of Petitioner or Agent Christopher O. Scott Printed named of signing party 9/9/2022 Date March 4, 2020 Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 288 9.A.2.e AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL20220003426 and PL20220003428 1, Bradley A. Boaz, CFO of Barron Collier Mngmt, Lt_C (print name), as Authorized Agent of Creekside West, Inc.. Manager (title, if applicable) of gCHD Partners I. LLC (company, if applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner0 applicant contract purchaserand that: 1. 1 have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that o 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. a 5. lllteh authorize Noel J. Davies. Davies Duke, PLLC and Christopher Scull. Peninsula Englneedng to act as ourlmy representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. _ 'Notes: ■ if the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the Corp, pres. or v. pros. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L. L. C.) or Limited Company (L.C. ), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. ■ If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. ■ If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee" • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true. 9I?��az� Signatdre Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of hysical resence or ❑ online notarization this -'day of 'ice r Zoe Z by (printed name of owner or qualifier} le,� h� �()A7_ Sucon(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: ® h pe , Are personally known to me 'a�Y ° ''• KIM D. DAVIDSON 0 Has produced a current drivers license Notary Puhll[ • State of Florida ` Commission # HH 201826 ❑ Has produced as identification. aFs� i Mk.Comm. Expires Feb 14, 2026 (�. Bonded through National Notary Assn. Notary Signatu(e, Yr �_`.-,E.iZti`� �� It r— CP108-COA-1) 0 11 5/ 155 RE1' 3/4/2020 Packet Pg. 289 Co er County 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 !NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the Lei C ercentaee or sucn interest: I - Name and Address I % of Ownership I If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the iercentage or stocrc ownea uy eacri: Name and Address % of Ownershie If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the ercentaee or interest: I Name and Address I % of OwnershiD I Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 290 Coder CouMty 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.collieneov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 BCHD Partners I, LLC 100% Mngr: Creekside West, Inc. 50% Gen Partner: Immokalee Retail, LLC 50olo (see attached Ownership Detail) e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: f 9. I Name and Address I % of Ownership Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or of 11LC1b, II d LUIPUIdLIU11, Pd11.1IVr]IIIvp Up LIUSL. Name and Address Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/29/2017 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 291 Co2 er County 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Date of option: Date option terminates: Anticipated closing date: 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand thatfailureto include all necessary submittal information mayresult in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner S�t re Bradley A. Boaz, of Barron CCo7i—er-&-anagement, LLC, Authorized Agent of Creekside West, Inc., Manaeter of BCHD Partners I. LLC, Agent/Owner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 917 mzZ_ Date Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 292 9.A.2.e NAME BCHD Partners I, LLC OWNERSHIP DETAIL Manager: Creekside West Inc. 1998 Barron Collier III Irrevocable R Child ren's Trust Blakeslee Gable M. Wells Gable Juliet C. Sproul Family Inheritance Trust Christopher Villere Lamar Villere Mathilde V. Currence Phyllis G. Alden JenniferS. Sullivan Juliet A. Sproul Katherine G. Sproul Juliet C. Sproul General Partner: Immokalee Retail, LLC Daniel Plughes and Beth Hughes Thomas Londres Stephen Niggeman Paul Runley Daniel Brickner Joseph Dougherty o� 100.0000% 50.0000% 17.5661% 15.9049% 15.9049% 14.3830% 8.9042% 8.9042% 8.9042% 6.3452% 0.9465% 0.9465% 0.9465% 0.3435% 50.0000% 35.126% 15.905% 20.500% 20.500% 8.974% 5.000% BENEFICIARY OF TRUST Barron G. Collier 1II's descendants Juliet C. Sproul and lineal descendants Packet Pg. 293 9.A.2.e Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercounty.go►r (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 parcel ID 37698580002, Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida 34120 (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. W The property described herein Is the subject of an application for Commercial planned unit development j_CPLID) zoning. We hereby designate Peninsula Engineering, Inc. and Davies Duke, PLLC, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the ll 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 U preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will M remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified 00 N 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. 6A& ae- — - Owner Owner Bradley Boaz, EVP of B rron Collier Mn t, LLC as horized Agent of reekside West,Inc- Mana er of B H Partner L Printed Name Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER -V G The foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of UKhVsical presence or©online notarization this l day of 202-7— by (printed name of owner or qualifier) Such erso (s) Notary Public must check applicable box: EaAre personally known to me�'� I[Ih{ Q, onvlasoN [:]Has produced a current drivers license = •��`: Notary Public • State of Florida Has produced as identification. a i Commission " HH 2O1826 p OFF ' My Comm: Exaires Feb 14, 2i}25 NotarySignature. ••••Sanded through National Notary Assn. } r 1`� I �-- March 4, 2020 Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 294 INSTR 6281289 OR 6151 PG 1982 RECORDED 7/12/2022 10:58 AM PAGES 2 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $2,522.80 REC $18.50 CONS $360,360.00 .:, THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY George A Alvarez, Esq Law Office of George A. Alvarez 10281 Sunset Drive, Suite 102B Miami, Florida 33173 O 305 270 1000 RETURN TO Collier Insurance Agency LLC 2600 Golden Gate Ay" Naples, FL 34105 Property Appraisers Parcel Jde. (Folio) Number 37698580002 ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DA WAMUNTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED, made e flay of July !'2022, by Lazaro A. Herrera and Elizabeth Herrera, husband and wife, whose post office addiess is661 SW 102 Avenue Road, Miami, Florida 33176, herein called the Grantors, to , BCHD Partners I, LLC, a Florida limited Parkway, Naples, Florida 34105, hereinafter (Wherever used herein the terms "Grantor" and "Gr legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and W I T N E S S E T H: That the Grantor(s), for and in v Dollars and other valuable considerations, receipt where aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the of Florida Legal Description ny, whose post office address is 2600 Golden Gate all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, and assigns of corporations) ton: of the sum of TEN AND 00/100'S ($10 00) ibfa knowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, alilhiat,certam land situate in Collier County, State The South 1/2 of Tract 121, less the East 49 feet thereof, Golden Ga plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 7, pages 83 and 84, of the Public Physical Address Vacant Land, Naples, Florida 34120 All Grantors warrant that at the time of this conveyance, the subject proper Homestead within the meaning set forth in the constitution of the state of Fl part of homestead property. Grantors' residence and homestead address is: Miami, Florida 33176. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto appertaining TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever Unit No. 22, according to the nr;Collier County, Florida. Grantors' contiguous to or a Avenue Road, anywise AND, All Grantors hereby covenant with said Grantee that the Grantors are lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that Grantors have good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2021. Packet Pg. 295 *** OR 6151 PG 1983 *** 9.A.2.e IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantors have signed and sealed these presents the day and year fast above written Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Witnesses #1 Signature (ds to both grantors) Witness #2 Signature (asln State of Florida County of Miami -Dade The foregoing instrument was acknow _&@-[^day of July, 2022, by Lazaro A [ 4are personally known to me or [ 1 [Notary Sea]] C4 - &-t5 zaro 50Herrera, Grantor Eli beth Herrera, Grantor a tU m 00 N M O O O N N O N J / a ✓ physical presence or online presence this 11 Printed E A ALVAREZic - State of Florida My Col =CEORGE ion # GG 953312 Expires Apr 5, 2024ational Notary Assn -era, husband and wife, �Yho co a n 99H 0/9rD-Adentification(s) , O N M CL Q 31onE�ptres � Zo � p f E El C a E Packet Pg. 296 9.A.2.e PENINSULA`, FNIGINEERING BCHD I COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT LIST AND MAP OF PROPERTY OWNERS PARCEL ID OWNER NAME LEGAL DESCRIPTION 37698580002 BCHD Partners I, LLC GGE Unit 22, S 165' of Tract 121 less r/w 37698520004 BCHD Partners I, LLC GGE Unit 22, Tract 120 less r/w 37698480005 BCHD Partners I, LLC GGE Unit 22, Tract 119 less r/w 37698440003 BCHD Partners I, LLC GGE Unit 22, Tract 118 less r/w 37698360002 BCHD Partners I, LLC GGE Unit 22, N 180' of Tract 116, less W 361' 37698360109 John W. Themel GGE Unit 22, W 361' of N 180' of Tract 116 I 37698360109 37693360302 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847^ Packet Pg. 297 0 fd O. 2 (L L) co Wand 6 allOB-OUT000ZZOV1d : ZMZ) uojjeojjddV-(] juewLjoeUVquewLjoeUV fl, W�44 7, Co j1Z cc L il� Tv A 3 z saw- 7F, z w z z LU 0 'o O 0 z z 0 z LU Lu z z z u LU D 0 (a°na I11111xred 1111a zi)°lmaddrrv"w9 v rv omp LOl15-HONIM-�tl0 L '' L ew b�� ' 1MM0►(AEEE ROAD 5-846'- ` �--(100_R.O.YIPPER PLAT{ - _ _ - - — - - m 3; orrnrcwo �$p da a P82V..23-E 330.1] P su+cE��e3-°ao[ao a iuc � e acciiea-0aoeA orrua P su. - °a.a�iiaos.4.— Eo a e=.� o.wxs'. ac. nes --32-1 ]'42'E 603.85 (ti�)"�o ® ox742'E en<,1 '® o x. S2'1]'22E 330.26(M) ' S2°1]'42'E 16516 (M) �® - S2_19'23'E 3301](P) _- __-__- �.----- S2°19'23"E 166.09(P) _ ----- T- uffi 9R 6" d� ----__ __-------------- } �3 O O � � N wP S'" � og � ¢Q �a O ~ c N z H H ❑ W W Drc a m J —i W « U d' a a '——9.6Z,ON 96, M.89.6Z.ON j;7 w O o :T Q Q Q� F om� wo� 3zF L �a (W) Ba'6ZE (d1000£E ('M'O'L -.09) (d) 00'09l Nu.11.61.11 - 3N 133NIS H14 �d (d)OOo86 M.99.6Z.0N 9.A.2.e PEN INSULA��. ENGINEERING �' BCHD I COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PROJECT NARRATIVE & EVALUATION CRITERIA PROJECT OVERVIEW: The application proposes to amend the BCHD I Ft■ r Add 2JM� to wbaorkV o deviations. Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) ?�=•=` :'': :` + .. � � by adding 2.69-acre Estates zoned parcel that fronts on Immokalee Road immediately to the north of the site. The PUDA clarifies that E:- 1 maximum permitted intensity of the CPUD is r 4 200,000 square feet of commercial floor area and/or indoor self -storage use and allows for every two square feet of approved indoor self- � ,._ to count as one (1) square foot of other n Astorage '� commercial uses. The PUDA does not propose to expand the permitted uses, revise the development standards, and does not propose or modify any PROJECT BACKGROUND: The existing 19.13-acre BCHD 1 CPUD was approved by Ordinance 2021-020 and is located on the west side of Immokalee Road, approximately one-half mile north of Randall Boulevard, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. The CPUD is approved for up to 200,000 sf of commercial uses. Consistent with subsection e. of the Subdistrict and Special Condition 6.h. of the CPUD, the westernmost 361 feet of the property (Parcel ID 37698360109) has been acquired by the adjacent property owner (Themel) and can only be utilized as open space and a driveway for the adjacent residential use. The remaining 17.64-acres is owned by BCHD Partners I, LLC and has received staff approval for a Construction Plan and Plat (PL20210002267, Winchester). As required by the CPUD, the subdivision plan shows an interconnection with the Randall Curve MPUD development to the south. The property to the south is currently under development, is designated as Immokalee Road/4t" Street NE Mixed Use Subdistrict and is zoned Randall Curve MPUD. The west and north are designated Residential Estates Subdistrict and are currently zoned Estates. The adjacent properties fronting on Immokalee Road BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003246 Page 1 1 Revised December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 300 9.A.2.e PENINSULA--,, ENGINEERING to the north of the subject site are undeveloped; properties fronting on 4t" St NE include a mix of vacant and large lot single-family dwellings typical to the Estates. The Orange Tree MPUD is located on the east side of Immokalee Road and is designated as a Rural Settlement Area District and includes a mix of residential single-family and vacant commercial opposite the project site. DETAILS OF REQUEST: This PUDA seeks to expand the project boundaries by approximately 2.69-acres, by adding the parcel that fronts on Immokalee Road immediately to the north of the site. This property was acquired by BCHD Partners I, LLC and is currently vacant. The additional acreage will primarily be used to meet the County's preserve requirement and allow for the commercial area within the existing CPUD boundaries to be a reconfigured. A new Master Concept Plan showing the additional acreage and reconfigured preserve and o commercial area is provided. With the additional property, the MCP land use areas have changed as follows: Existing MCP Proposed MCP Change Commercial 12.51 12.65 +0.14 4t" Street NE ROW 0.12 0.12 0.00 Preserve 2.85 3.26 +0.41 Water Management 1.67 1.64 -0.03 Landscape Buffers/Open Space 1.98 4.15 +2.17 Total Site Area 19.13 21.82 +2.69 The PUDA proposes to update the permitted commercial intensity by clarifying that indoor self -storage uses are treated separate from other commercial uses. The current PUD allows for a maximum intensity of 200,000 square feet is for commercial floor area which includes indoor self -storage uses. Because self - storage uses typically account for higher floor areas but generate significantly fewer trips, the PUDA proposes to reduce the permitted commercial floor area to 100,000 sf and limit the amount of indoor self - storage to 130,000 sf of floor area. This change does not affect the maximum daily trip generation (trip cap) of 681 two-way PM peak hour net trips that is approved by Transportation Condition 3.a. of Ordinance 2021-20. The PUDA does not expand the permitted uses, revise the development standards, and does not propose any new deviations. The only other changes proposed with this Amendment are minor updates and corrections: • Exhibit E, Deviations from the LDC, Deviation 1 has been updated to correct a scrivener error for maximum height and maximum sign area allowed by LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3. for a Directory Sign. Approved PUD incorrectly identifies a maximum 10' sign height and 100 square foot sign area as opposed to the 20' sign height and 200 square foot sign area allowed by the LDC. • Exhibit E, Deviations from LDC, Deviation 3 has been updated to reflect that the westernmost 361 feet of the westerly portion of the PUD was acquired by the adjacent single-family homeowner. BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003248 Page 1 2 Revised December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 301 9.A.2.e PENINSULA--,, ENGINEERING • Exhibit F, Development Commitments, Special Condition 6.h. placed limitations on the westernmost 361 feet of the PUD should it be acquired by the adjacent property owner of the south half of Tract 11S. This property was acquired by the adjacent property owner (Themel) and the commitment has been updated accordingly. The MCP has also been updated to remove the "Stormwater" designation from this property and identify it solely as "Open Space." A companion small-scale GMPA application (PL20220003246) has been submitted to expand the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict and is included with this application. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The PUDA meets the rezoning and PUD criteria established in the LDC and is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Growth Management Plan. LDC and GMP references are provided below with responses in bold italics. LDC Section 10.02.13 B.S.: 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 CPUD is a suitable location for commercial land uses as it is located at a signalized intersection on Immokalee Road, a six -lane arterial roadway, and is directly opposite vacant commercial land within the Orange Tree MPUD. The additional 2.69-acres being added to the CPUD is currently zoned Estates, which would allow for one single-family dwelling. Low density residential land uses are not suitable or desirable along Immokalee Road. The property is predominantly wetlands and will be used solely as preservation and open space, with area reserved to allow for pedestrian and vehicular interconnection to parcels to the north as currently required by the CPUD. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of 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 property that is subject to this PUDA is owned by BCHD Partners 1, LLC. C. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. A companion GMPA (PL20220003246) has been submitted. The amendment, if approved, would authorize the proposed expansion of the CPUD. BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003248 Revised December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Page 1 3 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 302 9.A.2.e onqw[ PENINSULA, ENGINEERING 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 CPUD Master Plan identifies buffers that meet or exceed the requirements of the LDC. The additional acreage will predominantly be used as preservation of native vegetation, which will ensure compatibility with adjacent Estates zoned parcels. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The PUDA will continue to meet the 30% open space requirement. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The proposed amendment does not include any increase in commercial intensity permitted by Ordinance 2021-20. There is adequate infrastructure to support the proposed development. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The proposed amendment will allow the for preserve and commercial areas to be reconfigured in order to allow for the CPUD to develop the commercial uses approved by Ordinance 2021-20. There are no plans to further expand the boundaries of the CPUD. 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. This amendment to the BCHD 1 CPUD does not propose any new deviations. LDC Section 10.02.08 F.: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed amendment to expand the CPUD boundary is consistent with the pending GMPA to the Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict. 2. The existing land use pattern. The expansion of the CPUD is consistent with the existing land use pattern. The additional area will consist primarily of preservation of native vegetation and open space which serves as a transition to the Estates lots to the north. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The amendment does not create an isolated district that is unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003248 Page 14 Revised December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 303 9.A.2.e onqw[ PENINSULA, ENGINEERING 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The expanded CPUD boundaries are logically drawn in relation to existing conditions and will allow for the reconfiguration of the preserve and commercial areas that are necessary to accommodate the commercial intensity approved for the development. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Residents of Golden Gate Estates have indicated support for additional commercial areas in appropriate locations. The location of the CPUD at a signalized intersection on one of the County's most highly traveled arterial roadways is more appropriate for commercial development than large lot residential uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood The proposed expansion of the CPUD will not negatively influence living conditions in the area. The additional area will consist of open space and preservation areas to provide sufficient screening to adjacent uses. The existing development standards contained in the PUD contains development standards including building setback and, building heights are not being revised by this amendment. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The proposed amendment does not increase the commercial intensity of the CPUD and will not create additional traffic. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed amendment will not create a drainage problem. The development is designed to meet stormwater requirements of Collier County and South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The amendment to the BCHD 1 CPUD will not reduce light and air to adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on property values in the adjacent areas. Development within the CPUD includes appropriate development standards and buffers to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003248 Revised December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Page 1 5 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 304 9.A.2.e onqw[ PENINSULA, ENGINEERING 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed amendment will not create a deterrent to the improvement or redevelopment of adjacent properties. The CPUD will maintain the commitment to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnection to property to the north. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The PUDA is consistent with the requirements of the LDC and the GMP and does not constitute a grant of special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The existing property is zoned Estates, which limits the use to a single-family dwelling. Large lot residential uses with frontages on a six -lane arterial road is not desired. The proposed amendment will limit the use of the additional acreage to open space and preserve. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county The CPUD was found to be in scale with the needs of the neighborhood and county by Ordinance 2021-20, based on the needs analysis included with that submittal. The proposed amendment does not increase the commercial intensity of the development. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The additional area being added to the CPUD is the only suitable location to expand the boundaries. 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 property being added to the CPUD is undeveloped and includes a mix of upland pine flatwoods and cypress wetlands. The majority of this area will be preserved in its current form and the remainder will be minimally altered to provide perimeter berms, landscaping and open space. 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. BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003248 Revised December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Page 1 6 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 305 9.A.2.e onqw[ PENINSULA, ENGINEERING Public facilities are available to meet the requirements of the development. The amendment does not propose to increase the permitted commercial intensity; all levels of service will be maintained. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP. The site has been designed to meet the requirements of the LDC and will not negatively impact surrounding land uses. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). The expanded CPUD is designed to be compatible with adjacent properties. The additional acreage will primarily be utilized as native preserve, providing a significant buffer to adjacent residential uses. The commercial area is slightly enlarged, but is oriented toward Immokalee Road, a six -lane divided arterial road. The development provides sufficient buffers to adjacent uses and is required to provide dark -sky compliant parking lot lighting to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties. FLUE Policy 5.7: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to the existing lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (formerly known as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, before servicing new areas. The proposed amendment seeks to add approximately 2.69-acres into the CPUD. The property is located at a signalized intersection on Immokalee Road in an area with public facilities. The additional acreage will be utilized primarily as native preservation area and allow for the commercial area to be slightly expanded within the existing Subdistrict boundaries. 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. BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003248 Revised December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Page 1 7 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 306 9.A.2.e PENINSULA--,, ENGINEERING The PUD has direct access onto Immokalee Road at the existing traffic signal opposite Orangetree Boulevard. There is no direct access to or from the commercial area to 4`h Street NE. Access locations are not changing as part of this application. FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Vehicular and pedestrian interconnection is provided from the site to properties to the north and the south. Transportation Policy 5.1: The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. The existing CPUD limits commercial development to a maximum intensity of 200,000 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed PUDA revises the intensity to 100,000 square feet of commercial floor area and 130,000 square feet of indoor self -storage floor area. The proposed changes does not increase the commercial intensity as it relates to trip generation and therefore has no impacts to the adjacent roadways. CCME Objective 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003248 Page 1 8 Revised December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 307 9.A.2.e onqw[ PENINSULA, ENGINEERING The development meets the minimum preservation requirements of the Land Development Code. Per LDCSection 3.05.07 8.1., commercial projects greater than 5-acres are required to provide 15% of the existing native vegetation as preserve area. The 21.82-acre project includes 21.70-acres of native vegetation and will retain 3.26-acres of preserve (15% of 21.70). The native vegetation in the area being added to the CPUD is of no higher or lower quality than those in the existing CPUD boundary. LDC Section 3.05.07 AA provides a hierarchy of native vegetation groups to be preserved. The existing native vegetation area within the project boundaries do not include (a) wetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed species or that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife; (b) Xeric Scrub, Dune and Strand, or Hardwood a Hammocks; (c) onsite wetlands having an accepted functionality WRAP score of at least 0.65 or a o Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Score of at least 0.7; or (d) any upland habitat that serves v as a buffer to a wetland having an accepted functionality WRAP score of at least 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Score of at least 0.7. The property does include some Cypress wetlands that have a UWM below 0.7 and Pine Flatwoods that are being preserved. CCME Objective 6.2: Protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands pursuant to the appropriate policies under Goal 6. The proposed Master Concept Plan provides 3.26-acres of native preservation which includes a mix of Cypress wetlands and Pine Flatwoods. Any wetland impacts will be addressed during the state and federal environmental permitting processes. CCME Objective 7.1: 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 No state or federally listed species were observed on site during observations made in 2018, 2019 or 2022 and the property does not contain US Fish and Wildlife Service -designated listed species critical habitat. Although no listed species were observed, the property does have potential to have listed species due to the presence of suitable habitat, confirmed sightings in the region or because the property is located within the consultation area for given species. The development will preserve 15% of the existing native vegetation (3.26-acres) as required by the Collier County LDC and all development will maintain required setbacks from the preserve to help ensure incompatible uses are directed away from listed species and their habitats. BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003248 Page 1 9 Revised December 20, 2022 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 308 9.A.2.e PENINSULA ENGINEERING CONSISTENCY WITH THE LDC SECTION 3.06.12 WELLFIELD PROTECTION OVERLAY LDC Section 3.06.12 establishes standards for regulated development to reduce the risk of wellfield contamination that would have a direct impact on the County's safety and health and the costly closure and replacement of polluted municipal water supply wells. The County has established wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zones around public water supply wellfields permitted to withdraw a minimum of 100,000 average gallons per day by SFWMD. The existing PUD and proposed expansion area is completely located within zone W-4 of the Golden Gate Well Field, as shown in LDC Illustration 3.06.06 C. and map below. Any regulated development within the PUD is required to meet the standards of LDC Section 3.06.12. Stormwater management systems will comply with SFWMD standards and solid waste bulk containers shall be leakproof and fitted with a rainproof lid or cover. There are no current or future plans for nonresidential uses that generate or store hazardous waste within the PUD. Orangetree -T _ Well Field .T •-- Collier County Utilities -- Golden Gate Well Field ___ _ --- r.��}�,... _ S�;• -I .-.. r __fir 1 li�_,- � ' I_ City of Naples East Golden Gate Well Field Well Field Protection Zones W - 1 Zane = 1 Year Travel Time Isocontcur CVV - 2 Zone = 2 Year Travel Time isocontour W - 3 Zone = 5 Year Travel Time Isocontour W - 4 Zone = 20 Year Travel Time Isocontour 0 2 - Collier CaunV Udr ies _ Golden Gate Well Field BCHD 1 PUDA, PL20220003248 Revised December 20, 2022 0 Miles 8 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Page 1 10 0 a 0 x U m 00 N 1* M O O O N N O N tL N 00 r LO N C V :z a c d t v r Q C t Q Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 309 9.A.2.e ORDINANCE NO. 2021- 20 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES FOR A PROTECT TO BE KNOWN AS BCHD I CPUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE- HALF MILE NORTH OF RANDALL BOULEVARD ON THE WEST SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 19.13f ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PL20200000546) WHEREAS, Noel Davies, Esquire of Davies Duke, PLLC and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing BCHD Partners I, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Sections 21 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from an Estates (E) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for a 19.13t acre parcel to be known as BCHD I CPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. [20-CP5-02010/1621278/11 159 Pagel of2 BCHD 1 I PL_20200000546 4/27/21 Packet Pg. 310 9.A.2.e SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 2021-19 becomes effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County I. Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 9 -day of sr , 2021. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. K1NkEL, CLERK COLLIE O TY, FLORIDA By: Attest as to Chal #'10' Clerk Penny TayVr, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: �-]' , '� A,- C h-' He 1 Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A — Permitted Uses Exhibit B — Development Standards Exhibit C — Master Plan Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E — Deviations Exhibit F — List of Developer Commitments [20-CPS-02010/1621278/1) 159 Page 2 of 2 BCFrD 1 I PL20200000546 4127121 This ordinance filed with the Sesr�tary of S ta's Office the ay of F , and acknowledgement 0� lhot filin received this I dcy C of 1 ep^ C,Ark Packet Pg. 311 9.A.2.e EXHIBIT A BCHD I CPUD PERMITTED USES A maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross commercial floor area shall be permitted within the CPUD. The uses are subject to the trip cap identified in Exhibit F, Section 3.a of this PUD. COMMERCIAL: A. Principal Uses: 1. All permitted and conditional uses in the C-1 through C-3 Zoning Districts of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Ordinance 04-41, as amended), except those uses identified as prohibited in item C. below. 2. Carwashes (7542) 3. Medical and dental laboratories (8071 and 8072) 4. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (4225, air-conditioned mini -and self storage warehousing only) 5. Nursing and professional care facilities (8051, 8052, 8059) 6. Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted uses within this CPUD document. 2. Water management facilities to serve the project such as lakes. 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. 4. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this CPUD as determined by the BZA or the Hearing Examiner. PL20200000546, BC11D I CPUD Fxh A-F DRAFT46.docx April 28, 2021 Pop I of 10 Packet Pg. 312 9.A.2.e C. Prohibited Uses and Structures: 1. Any use that would be subject to regulation under Ordinance No. 91-83 and any amendment or successor ordinances thereto regulating sexually oriented businesses. 2. 7361— Employment Agencies, only labor contractors 3. 7363 — Help Supply Services, only: Labor pools; Manpower pools 4. Homeless shelter, as defined by the LDC. 5. Soup kitchens, as defined by the LDC. 6. 8063 — Psychiatric Hospitals. For the avoidance of any doubt, psychiatric hospitals, including drug/alcohol rehabilitation facilities shall be prohibited. 7. 8069 — Specialty Hospitals, Except Psychiatric, only: alcoholism rehabilitation hospitals; drug addiction rehabilitation hospitals; rehabilitation hospitals drug addiction and alcoholism; tuberculosis and other respiratory illness hospitals. 8. 8322 — Individual and Family Social Services, only: alcoholism counseling, nonresidential; crisis center; crisis intervention centers; hotlines; offender rehabilitation agencies; offender self-help agencies; outreach programs; parole ❑ffices; probation offices; public welfare centers; referral services for personal and social problems; refugee services; self-help ❑rganizations for alcoholic and gamblers; settlement houses. PRESERVE: A. Allowable Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. 2. Mitigation for environmental permitting, as per LDC requirements. 3. Passive Recreation areas, as per LDC requirements. 4. Water management and water management structures, as per LDC requirements. PL20200000546, BC11D I CPUD Frh A-F DRAFT-r6.docx ,April 28, 2021 Page 2 of 10 Packet Pg. 313 9.A.2.e BCHDICPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The tables below set forth the development standards for land uses within the BCHD I CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 100 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Immokalee Road ROW 25 ft. SPS From Northern Project Boundary 30 ft. SPS From Western Project Boundary* 50 ft. 25 ft From Southern Project Boundary 25 ft. **** 25 ft. **** MINIMUM YARDS (internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 ft. 10 ft Rear 10 ft. 10 ft. Side 10 ft. 10 ft. Lakes (measured from control elevation) 25 ft. 20 ft.** Preserve 25 ft. 10 ft. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 1/2 the sum of building heights 10 Ft. MAXIMUM HEIGHT*** ZONED ACTUAL ZONED ACTUAL 45 ft. 55 ft. 35 ft. 45 ft. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA (ground floor) 1,000 sq. ft. *** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS COMMERCIAL AREA 200,000 sq. ft. * Setback from 4t" Street N.E. shall be 200 feet for any principal use and 200 feet for any accessory use. ** No structure may be located closer than 20 feet to the control elevation of a lake (allowing for the required minimum 20-foot wide lake maintenance easement). *** Per principal structure. Kiosk vendor, concessions, and temporary or mobile sales structures shall be permitted to have a minimum floor area of twenty-five (25) square feet and shall be subject to the accessory structure standards set forth in the LDC. **** May be reduced to zero feet if developed as a unified plan with the adjacent property to the south. P1,20200000546, BCHD f CPUD Erh A-F DRAFT-r6.docs Aprr128, 2021 Page 3 of 10 Packet Pg. 314 § j7 C-§ \� Wand � all38-9ZV£ 0 Z 0 ]d:Z mZ u©|e! mldd Q mmLioe n¥: emt4oen¥ o� �<N �¥§ ¥Q° 3< > % }w u wjj (.9 co U co EL §®� w �mR �/\ �3� ML 2 7 in o ¥ ED0 O Imo IMMO A E ROAD / � | ■ ■ _ � �� § � \� �2 -gym V. �| � ~ 3 \ \ _ k § LU })A )|\ CL | § o R / ! ! ] ! LLJ so ' :\ - §Ld E E ! § �\ ) o ` - 'u iw % | ƒ § �' } .$ >LU {% : \\: [�A 2 �| jw \\ \� � �� \I \ \k |� | 5 $ly § §% \ b z E\� LU§ §|\/| / ƒ ] I ( a: ISO m � k c 0 - k §k | | 2§ , 4TH STREW kE � - --- --- --- W m —i LL -- � � 2 3 x Q W W 0 W cl 0 m WU« 9.A.2.e Ery1rIII �YIlIT, k►i1►-xi TOTAL SITE AREA: 19,13± ACRE COMMERCIAL (C) 12.51± AC (65%) 4TH STREET N.E. ROW 0.12± AC (1 %) PRESERVE(P) 2.85± AC (15%) WATER MANAGEMENT 1.67± AC (9%) LANDSCAPE BUFFERS / OPEN SPACE 1.98± AC (10%) COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 200,000 S.F. OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% PRESERVE: REQUIRED: 2,85± ACRES (19.01 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X 15%) PROVIDED: 2.85± ACRES DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT E) [] RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.04.F.3., "DIRECTORY SIGNS" 21 RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.01. - "STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS" AND "APPENDIX B, TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS" U RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02.C.4. - "BUFFER REQUIREMENTS -TYPES OF BUFFERS" NOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07. IN ORDER TO MEET THE LDC REQUIREMENTS FOR A TYPE 'B' BUFFER A 6 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESERVATION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE MASTER PLAN. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PRESERVE DOES NOT MEET BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER REMOVAL OF EXOTICS AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING WITHIN THE PRESERVE, PLANTINGS WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE 6' WIDE RESERVATION TO MEET THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THE TYPE, SIZE, AND NUMBER OF SUCH PLANTINGS, IF NECESSARY, WILL BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF INITIAL SDP OR PLAT AND INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THE SDP OR PLAT. ® U. c..ul 1u.ur r"n %Otai.rGradyYlinQINm via 1M11kvv Tk-w sv.11plrLw�& 3111. m`aFmooco[-]v EXHiBiT C o.]a r,ivll KngincerK . Lond Surwyom . i'lannera . l.ondKrape Archtteds MASTER PLAN NOTES 'm ,,"c I-L. M ww, F'11"5151 orn.Ar 01. 11l� 01 8..1a... LC xnoo M REVISED 04/21/2021 aolna liolrhlka nkl.EW ir4.1 1."1r rrrarheeaar rnnr ruM M]erk _^391140.J1 m11 911hEY i OF 7 Packet Pg. 316 9.A.2.e EXHIBIT D BCHD I CPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: THE NORTH 180 FEET OF TRACT NO. 116, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 22, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGES 83-84, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 2. TRACT 118, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT N0. 22, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE5 83-84, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS a THAT PORTION TAKEN FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PURSUANT TO ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN ❑.R. BOOK 3111, PAGE 500, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY = U DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PORTION OF TRACT 118, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT N0. 22, ACCORDING o0 TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 84, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER N COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE c NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT 118; THENCE SOUTH 01*30`15" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF c 172.46 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N SOUTH 88"32 50 WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,814.93 FEET THEREFROM; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY, ALONG J THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,814.93 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL a ANGLE OF 03"12'32", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 157.83 FEET AT A BEARING OF SOUTH 00'09106" 04 WEST, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 157.65 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE, AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY r CORNER OF SAID TRACT 118; THENCE NORTH 89"40'50" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF Lo SAID TRACT 118, FOR A DISTANCE OF 50.10 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE o WESTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 87°51'02" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,769.79 FEET r THEREFROM; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A 2 RADIUS OF 2,769.79 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03-38'39", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF a 176.14 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 00'19'38" EAST, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 176.17 FEET TO THE Q END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE NORTH 01°30'15" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 153.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°40'50" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 118, FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.00 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3: ALL OF TRACT 119, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 22, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGES 83-84, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE EASTERLY 49.00 FEET TAKEN FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PURSUANT TO ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 3111, PAGE 500, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 4: ALL OF TRACT 120, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 22, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGES 83 AND 84, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE EASTERLY 49.00 FEET AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN ❑FFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3111, PAGE 485 AND STIPULATED ANAL}UDGMENT RECORDED I OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3431, PAGE 993. 19.13 ACRES MORE OR LESS (AS MEASURED) PL20200000546. BC11D I CPUD Exh A-F DR4FT-r6.daex April28, 2021 Page b of 10 Packet Pg. 317 9.A.2.e EXHIBIT E BCHDICPU❑ DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC DEVIATION 1: Relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3., "Directory Signs", which permits Multiple - occupancy parcels or multiple parcels developed under a unified development plan , with a minimum of 8 independent units, and containing 20,000 square feet or more of leasable floor area shall be permitted 1 directory sign a maximum of o 10 feet in height and a maximum of 100 square feet at one entrance on each a - public street, to instead allow a single directory sign where fewer than 8 0 independent units are developed under a unified plan. x DEVIATION 2: Relief from LDC Section 6.06.01. — "Street System Requirements" and "Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right -of -Way Design Standards". The LDC establishes a minimum 60-foot right of way width for local streets. This deviation proposes to instead allow for private roads within the site to be located in a 50-foot wide access easement or Right -of -Way. DEVIATION 3: Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4. — "Buffer Requirements — Types of buffers", which requires a landscape buffer shall be required adjacent to any road right-of- way external to the development project and adjacent to any primary access roads internal to a commercial development. Said landscape buffer shall be consistent with the provisions of the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan, which is incorporated by reference herein. The minimum width of the perimeter landscape buffer shall vary according to the ultimate width of the abutting right-of-way. Where the ultimate width of the right-of-way is zero to 99 feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall measure at least ten feet in width. Where the ultimate width of the right-of-way is 100 or more feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall measure at least 15 feet in width. Developments of 15 acres or more and developments within an activity center shall provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way. Activity center right-of-way buffer width requirements shall not be applicable to roadways internal to the development to instead allow installation of a 15 foot wide type'B' buffer adjacent to the internal lake as shown on the conceptual PIED Master Plan. This deviation shall only apply if the westernmost 361 feet of the westerly portion of the P U D (a.k.a. north 180 feet of Tract 116, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision), which is the single western parcel immediately abutting 4th ST. NE, is acquired on or before August 31, 2021, by the adjacent single-family homeownerto the north (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision). PL20200000546, RCHD I CPUD F-rh .4-F DP-41- T46.dorx April 28. Z02I Page 7 oi' 14 Packet Pg. 318 9.A.2.e EXHIBIT F BCHD i CPU❑ DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD o commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing a Entity is BCHD I Partners, LLC, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105. 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 m sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be releasedGo of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor M entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the o Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of N the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to N comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall J a not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the N Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD 00 LO commitments. N. 2. MISCELLANEOUS a. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 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. c. Parking lot lighting shall be dark sky compliant (flat panel, full cut off fixtures— backlight, uptight and glare (BUG) rating where U = 0) to avoid light spill onto adjacent properties. Fixtures within 50-ft of residential properties along the PUD boundary shall be set at no higher than a 15-ft mounting height. Otherwise the site light poles shall not exceed a 25- ft mounting height. Light levels along the PUD boundary shall be limited to no more than 0.2-ft-candles along the joint property line where adjacent to residential property (i.e. not applicable to Immokalee Rd). d. All buildings shall be of similar architectural design and have similar design elements. P1,10200000546, BCHD 1 CPUD L•:xh A-F DRAFT--r6. docx April 28. 2021 Page s { i to Packet Pg. 319 9.A.2.e 3. TRANSPORTATION The total daily trip generation for the P U D shall not,exceed 681 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. b. Vehicular and Pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the south to allow access to all connection points with Immokalee Road, consistent with the conceptual PU❑ Master Plan, Exhibit C. The final location of the access paint will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross -access easement will be provided at time of the first Site Development Plan or Plat. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the developer or successors or assigns prior to the a first Certificate of Occupancy. o c. Vehicular interconnection will be provided to the north consistent with the conceptual PUD Master Plan, Exhibit C. The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross -access easement will be provided at time of Site Development Plan for the commercial outparcel(s) north of the signalized entry road. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the developer or successors or assigns at the time the autparcel(s) is developed and completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Sidewalks connecting to the Immokalee Road ROW shall be provided on both the north and south sides of the entrance road/drive. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL The CPUD shall be required to preserve 15% of native vegetation. 19.01± acres of native vegetation exists on -site requiring a minimum preservation of 2.85± acres (19.01 x .15 = 2.85). A minimum of 2.85± acres of native vegetation shall be retained on -site. b. A management plan for Florida Black Bear shall be submitted for review and approval at time of final plat or SDP for the project, whichever is applicable. LANDSCAPING Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07. In order to meet the LDC requirements for a Type 'B' buffer a 6 foot wide landscape buffer reservation has been identified on the Master Plan. In the event that the preserve does not meet buffer requirements after removal of exotics and supplemental planning within the preserve, plantings will be provided in the 6 foot wide reservation to meet the buffer requirements. The type, size, and number of such plantings, if necessary, will be determined at time of initial SDP or Plat and included on the landscape plans for the SDP or Plat. PL20200000546, BUID I CPUD Exh A-FOR4FT46docx April 28, 2021 Pngc 7 tic io Packet Pg. 320 9.A.2.e 6. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. No adult orientated sales are permitted. b. Outdoor amplified sound shall be limited to areas layeled C on the Master Plan adjacent to Immokalee Road and at least 500 feet from adjacent western residential parcels. There will be no outdoor amplified sound between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. weekdays and 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. on weekends. c. There will be no outdoor dining adjacent to residential properties. d, Delivery bays shall not abut external residential development. e. All pole lighting shall be limited to flat full cutoff shields. f, All buildings shall be designed with unifying architectural design elements. g. No commercial structures will be constructed on the westerly portion of the PUD (a.k.a. north 180 feet of Tract 116, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision), which is the single western parcel immediately abutting 4th St. NE. this area will be used for native preservation, stormwater management or buffer areas only; however, the immediately adjacent single family homeowner to the north (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision) may establish a driveway for the sole benefit and exclusive use of that homeowner's residential property. There shall be no access to commercial uses within the CPUD from 4th St. NE. h. Should the westernmost 361 feet of the westerly portion of the PUD (a.k.a. north 180 feet of Tract 116, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision), which is the single western parcel immediately abutting 4th ST. NE, be acquired by the property owner of the adjacent northern parcel (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision) on or before August 31, 2021, that area shall not be utilized for water management purposes and no buffers will be required on the northern, western and southern portions of that property. A 15 foot wide type '13' landscape buffer will be provided east of the acquired portion of the property adjacent to the western end of the proposed water management area as shown on the Master Plan. In the event the property is not acquired by the property owner of the adjacent northern parcel (a.k.a. the south half of Tract 115, Golden Gate Estates Unit 22 subdivision) on or before August 31, 2021, then that area may be utilized for water management purposes and buffers shall be provided per the LDC at time of SDP. i. Owner will install chain link fencing around the lake as required by the LDC or Code of Laws and Ordinances at time of Site Development Plan approval. PL20200000546, BC11D 1 CPUD Fxh A-F DRr1IT-r6docx April 28. 2021 Page 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 321 9.A.2.e .. Ak .No FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE' RON DESANTIS Governor May 4, 2021 Ms. Teresa Cannon, BMR Senior Clerk 11 Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller of Collier County 3329 Tamiami Trail E, Suite #401 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Ms. Cannon: LAUREL M.LEE Secretary of State Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66. Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 2021-20, which was filed in this office on May 4, 2021 Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator FLRIIb R. A. Gray Building . 500 South Bronough Street . Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 Packet Pg. 322 9.A.2.e PENINSULAti ENGINEERING UPDATED December 20, 2022 Collier County Growth Management Department ATTN: Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: BCHD I CPUD o PUD Amendment — PL20220003428 a- TIS Waiver Request Mr. Sawyer: Please accept this letter of No Impact—TIS Waiver request for the above referenced PUD Amendment application. The proposed amendment seeks to add additional acreage and make associated revisions to the Master Concept Plan. There are no proposed changes to the schedule of uses or access locations. The amendment seeks to clarify that indoor self -storage uses, which typically require larger amounts of floor area but generate significantly fewer vehicle trips, are treated differently from other commercial floor area. This has been accomplished by amending the permitted commercial intensity language to state: A maximum of 200-808100,000 square feet of gross commercial floor area and 130,000 square feet of indoor self -storage floor area shall be permitted within the CPUD... While the total floor area allowed within the PUD increases from 200,000 to 230,000 square feet, the PUD will continue to be subject to a total daily trip generation of 681 two-way PM peak hour net trips. The 681 two-way PM peak hour net trips are based on 200,000 square feet of commercial shopping center as outlined in the TIS submitted with the original CPUD zoning (PL20200000546), which is significantly higher than the maximum potential development proposed with this amendment. A copy of that TIS is attached to this letter. Please feel free to contact me at (239) 403-6727 or by email at cscott@pen-eng.com should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincer ly, Ch istopher 0. Scott, AICP Planning Manager 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 323 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) 9.A.2.e TPBDIICOCN planning•enWeerina Traffic Impact Statement BCHD-I (fka Immokalee Road - Estates Commercial Subdistrict) Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)/ Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Prepared for: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Phone: 239-947-0375 Collier County, Florida 01/29/2021 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee* — $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* — Maior Study — $1,500.00 Fee Note — *to be collected at time of first submittal Packet Pg. 324 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. o a This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Norman J. Trebilcock, P.E., State of Florida license 47116, using a SHA-1 authentication code. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the SHA-1 authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. .......... =o4 No 47116 O�� :A STATE OF '4� O R I?.. [�>>� A' E��tit Digitally signed by Norman Trebilcock DN: c=US, st=Florida, l=Naples, o=Norman Trebilcock, cn=Norman Trebilcock, email=ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Date: 2021.01.29 14:26:11-05'00' Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 2 Packet Pg. 325 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) 9.A.2.e BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road— Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Table of Contents ProjectDescription.......................................................................................................................................4 TripGeneration.............................................................................................................................................5 Trip Distribution and Assignment.................................................................................................................7 BackgroundTraffic......................................................................................................................................11 Existing and Future Roadway Network.......................................................................................................13 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis..........................................................................15 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis....................................................................................................................17 a ImprovementAnalysis................................................................................................................................18 0 Mitigationof Impact...................................................................................................................................19 = U m ao N Appendices M O Appendix A: Project Master Plan...............................................................................................................20 0 N Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)................................................................. 22 N J Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition....................................................................... 29 a N O r LO N C O r R v .Q a 0 E a E a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g 1 3 Packet Pg. 326 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e Project Description The subject project is a proposed commercial/retail development located on the west side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), north of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard, within Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, in Collier County, Florida. Refer to Figure 1— Project Location Map, which follows and Appendix A: Project Master Plan. Figure 1— Project Location Map K c l.a�wWW.�� �p ARM* RsN roo L 6 PYF . M Idles i c����.�•r rn�n Project s e NICht'9tlplr�A1Y+�.v �q - � p% i S LdN[. MbNle Q ..r . ••"«•^ • _• wee pewir Go gle The property is currently vacant land. The subject site is approximately 20 acres in size and is currently zoned as Estates Zoning District ("E") as illustrated in the adopted Collier County 2012-2025 Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this report is to document the transportation impact analysis for the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) of the BCHD-I (fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) project from Estates zoning District to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) District. The proposed change would allow for two development scenarios as follow: Scenario 1 — 200,000 square feet (sf) retail building; or, Scenario 2 — 150,000 square feet (sf) retail building and 50,000 sf of medical office. Conservatively, this analysis classifies the proposed retail building as shopping center for traffic generation purposes. For the purposes of this evaluation, the project build -out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2025 planning horizon. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g- 14 Packet Pg. 327 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e The project provides a highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed trip generation. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 Development Program at Buildout Conditions x • 11alfTTMIT-T Scenario 1 Retail Shopping Center 820 200,000 sf Scenario 2 Retail Shopping Center 820 150,000 sf Medical Office Medical - Dental Office Building 720 50,000 sf Based on the project location relative to Immokalee Road (refer to Appendix A), connection to subject project is expected to consist of a full movement access drive onto Immokalee Road (CR 846) at its intersection with Orange Tree Boulevard, which is currently a signalized intersection. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on October 15, 2020 via email (as referenced in Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist). Trip Generation The project's site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trri Generation Manual, loth Edition. The software program OTISS — Online Traffic Impact Study Software (most current version) is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE equations are used for the trip generation calculations. Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition. The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. The ITE guidelines provide internal capture provisions for retail and office uses interactions. Per Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. Projected internal capture traffic reduction for the Scenario 2 development is calculated as 7.3% of the unadjusted PM peak hour traffic. Consistent with ITE guidelines and Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture trips are not considered for Scenario 1 development. The pass -by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass -by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass -by trips are not deducted for operational -access analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e I S Packet Pg. 328 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e Per ITE User's Guide and Handbook recommendations, PM peak period average pass -by trip percentage is 34% for the Shopping Center land use (ITE LUC 820). Per Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the pass -by capture for shopping centers should not exceed 25% for the peak hour. Therefore, based on a conservative approach, this analysis calculates pass -by reduction for shopping center as 25% for AM and PM peak hours, and 15% for daily two-way traffic. The projected trip generation scenarios for the proposed development at build out conditions are illustrated in Table 2A and Table 2B. Table 2A Trip Generation (Proposed Development — Scenario 1) — Average Weekday 24 Hour Development Two -Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume ITE Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Shopping Center 200,000 sf 9,632 156 96 252 436 472 908 Unadjusted Traffic Internal Capture N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A External Traffic 9,632 156 96 252 436 472 908 Pass -by 1,445 39 24 63 109 118 227 Net External Traffic 8,187 117 72 189 327 354 681 Table 2B Trip Generation (Proposed Development — Scenario 2) — Average Weekday 24 Hour Development Two -Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume ITE Land Use Size 150,000 sf 7,921 50,000 sf 1,833 9,754 586 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Shopping Center Medical -Dental Office Building —[ Unadjusted Traffic 141 86 227 352 382 734 94 27 121 48 124 172 235 113 348 400 506 906 Internal Capture 12 12 24 33 33 66 External Traffic 9,168 223 101 324 367 473 840 Pass -by Net External Traffic 1,144 33 21 54 82 93 175 8,024 190 80 270 285 380 665 C IL T C x t� m ao N M 0 0 0 N N O N J IL N 0 u� N c 0 M a Q C c m E z a c d E z M Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 6 Packet Pg. 329 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 In agreement with the Collier County TIS guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour. Based on the trip generation results, from a traffic standpoint, the proposed Scenario 1 development is more intense when compared against Scenario 2 option. In addition, as illustrated in Table 2A, the PM peak hour yields a higher trip generation rate when compared to the AM peak hour. For the purpose of this report, the surrounding roadway network link concurrency analysis is analyzed based on projected PM peak hour of net external traffic (pass -by traffic is considered) generated by the proposed Scenario 1 development at buildout conditions. o a The estimated net new increase in external trips by the proposed amendment at build out is 681 PM peak hour two-way trip ends. _ Trip Distribution and Assignment The net external traffic generated by the proposed project is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and engineering judgement. The site -generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3 and it is graphically depicted in Figure 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 7 Packet Pg. 330 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Table 3 Proposed Development — Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour Roadway Link Collier County Link No. Distribution PM Peak Hour Roadway Link Location of Project Project Vol.* Traffic Enter Exit Collier Blvd. to Wilson Blvd. 15% EB —49 WB — 53 Wilson Blvd. to Randall Blvd. 35% EB —114 WB —124 Randall Blvd. to Project 50% EB —164 WB — 177 Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) 44.0 Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) 45.0 45.0 Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) 45.0 Project to Oil Well Rd. 40% WB —131 EB —142 Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) 46.0 Oil Well Rd. to 47th Ave. NE 10% WB — 33 EB — 35 Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) 46.0 47th Ave.NE to SR 29 5% WB —16 EB —18 Wilson Blvd. 118.0 South of Immokalee Rd. 15% NB-49 SB-53 5% EB —16 WB —18 5% WB —16 EB —18 15% WB — 49 10% WB — 33 EB — 35 Golden Gate Blvd. 17.0 Collier Blvd. to Wilson Blvd. Wilson Blvd. to 18th St NE/SE Golden Gate Blvd. Randall Blvd. Randall Blvd. 123.0 132.0 Immokalee Rd. to 8th St NE 132.0 81h St NE to 16th St NE Randall Blvd. 132.0 16th St NE to Everglades Blvd. 5% WB —16 EB —18 Randall Blvd. 133.0 Everglades Blvd. to Desoto Blvd. 5% WB —16 EB —18 Oil Well Rd. 119.0 Immokalee Rd. to Hawthorn Rd. 25% WB — 82 EB — 89 Oil Well Rd. 119.0 Hawthorn Rd. to Everglades Blvd. 15% WB — 49 EB — 53 Oil Well Rd. Everglades Blvd. 120.0 Everglades Blvd. to Desoto Blvd. 5% WB —16 EB —18 SB —18 135.0 South of Oil Well Rd. 5% North of Oil Well Rd. 5% NB —16 Everglades Blvd. 136.0 SB —16 NB —18 Note(s): *Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations The peak direction of the roadway segments is illustrated in the 2020 AUIR. C a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 8 Packet Pg. 331 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e Figure 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour Project Distribution by Percentage 59b � N ABS = Absorption m lnmokal-e Rd 1 nlden G*e @Ivd 10% 5°,b ABS Project 25°l0 40% W?reE 50% TwinEck l �%ABS Infor ,596 i 35 % 15% 3% ABS m K i2 ` 110% ABSI w 15°k T= 5% r771 > < > ABS 0i w9ll Fd E� 5� 159 TE 5% AB5 5% ABS Goldan Ga#g 5kd 0 a 2 U m 00 N M 0 0 0 N N 0 N d N 00 r LO N r Q a a 0 a V fC Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 9 Packet Pg. 332 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Project Distribution by PM Peak Hour a C Swamp Enter-16. Exlt-1 B m w Enter-33. Exll-35 Enter-16, Exit-1B Project Enter-82, Exit-89 Enter-49, Exit-53 Erger-16, Exit-1 S Naples Dr r free iVW1Rd Enler-164, Exit-177 �� Enter-131, Exit-142 �� r1 �� I s , � � Enter-16, Exit-18 Enter-+$. Exit-53 Rardal Blvd. <3 <—� Immokelee Rd Enter-33, Exit-35 Enier-16, Exit.18 Enter-16, 2 it-18 Enter48, Exit-53 Enter-49, Exit-53 r-114, Exll-124 1 ; LZ T w I;nlden Gate Enter-16, Exit-18 7ter-16, Exit-18 „wtanCAt�,Blvd E�Ivd � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Pane 110 Packet Pg. 333 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from peak hour peak direction volume (estimated from 2008 through 2020), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) volume plus the trip bank volume. The higher of the two determinations is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build -out year 2025. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 11 Packet Pg. 334 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road - Estates Commercial Subdistrict) - CPUD/GMPA - TIS -January 2021 Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2020 - 2025) 2025 Projected 2025 2020 AUIR Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Projected Pk Pk Hr, Pk CC Traffic Background Hr, Peak Dir Dir Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Annual Growth Traffic Volume Trip Background Backgfic Link Link Location Growth Factor w/out Project Bank Traffic Volume d Traffic ID # Rate (trips/hr) w/out Project Volume (%/yr)* Growth (trips/hr) Trip (trips/hr) Factor** Bank*** Immokalee Collier Blvd. to 44.0 2,480 4.0% 1.2167 3,017 725 3,205 Rd. (CR 846) Wilson Blvd. Immokalee Wilson Blvd. to 45.0 2,310 3.12% 1.1660 2,693 465 2,775 Rd. (CR 846) Randall Blvd. Immokalee Randall Blvd. to Rd. (CR 846) 45.0 Project 2,310 3.12% 1.1660 2,693 465 2,775 Immokalee Project to Oil Rd. (CR 846) 45.0 Well Rd. 2,310 3.12% 1.1660 2,693 465 2,775 Immokalee Oil Well Rd. to Rd. (CR 846) 46.0 471h Ave. N E 480 4.0% 1.2167 584 178 658 Immokalee 47th Ave. NE to 46.0 480 4.0% 1.2167 584 178 658 Rd. (CR 846) SR 29 South of Wilson Blvd. 118.0 350 2.0% 1.1041 386 0 350 Immokalee Rd. Golden Gate Collier Blvd. to 17.0 1,910 2.0% 1.1041 2,109 0 1,910 Blvd. Wilson Blvd. Golden Gate Wilson Blvd. to Blvd. 123.0 18th St NE/SE 1,440 2.0% 1.1041 1,590 15 1,455 Immokalee Rd. to8th Randall Blvd. 132.0 St NE 870 2.0% 1.1041 961 23 893 8th St NE to Randall Blvd. 132.0 161h St NE 870 2.0% 1.1041 961 23 893 16th St NE to Randall Blvd. 132.0 870 2.0% 1.1041 961 23 893 Everglades Blvd. Everglades Blvd. Randall Blvd. 133.0 665 2.0% 1.1041 735 0 665 to Desoto Blvd. Immokalee Rd. to Oil Well Rd. 119.0 950 4.0% 1.2167 1,156 417 1,367 Hawthorn Rd. Hawthorn Rd. to Oil Well Rd. 119.0 950 4.0% 1.2167 1,156 417 1,367 Everglades Blvd. Everglades Blvd. Oil Well Rd. 120.0 370 o 2.0% 1.1041 409 212 582 to Desoto Blvd. Everglades South of Oil 135.0 418 2.0% 1.1041 462 58 476 Blvd. Well Rd. Everglades North of Oil 136.0 560 3.08% 1.1638 652 0 560 Blvd. Well Rd. Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate - from 2020 AUIR, 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1 +Annual Growth Rate)5. 2025 Projected Volume = 2020 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2025 Projected Volume = 2020 AUIR Volume +Trip Bank. The projected 2025 Peak Hour - Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. d 2 U m 00 N M O O O N N O N J a N w c .Q a a 0 c m t U R Q c a� E t Y Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 12 Packet Pg. 335 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the Collier County 2020 AUIR and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five- year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. The Randall Boulevard segment from Immokalee Road to 8t" Street NE has intersection improvements planned which will include 4-laning Randall Boulevard to 8t" Street NE. As such, this Randall Boulevard segment is expected to have a 2025 peak direction, peak hour capacity volume of 2,000 vph. As no other improvements were identified in the Collier County 2020 AUIR, the other evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build -out (2025 planning horizon year). The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 13 Packet Pg. 336 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions CC 1 2020 Peak 2025 Peak 2020 Min. 2025 Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Dir, Peak Hr Dir, Peak Hr Roadway Standard Roadway Link Link ID Location Capacity Capacity Condition LOS Condition # Volume Volume Immokalee Rd. Collier Blvd. to 44.0 (CR 846) 6D E Wilson Blvd. _ Wilson Blvd. to 6D E 3,300 (EB) 6D _ 3,300 (EB) 6D 3,300 (EB) 3,300 (EB) Immokalee Rd. 45.0 (CR 846) Randall Blvd. Randall Blvd. 6D E 3,300 (EB) 6D 3,300 (EB) Immokalee Rd. 45.0 (CR 846) to Project Immokalee Rd. 45.0 Project to 6D E 3,300 (EB) 6D 3,300 (EB) (CR 846) Oil Well Rd. Immokalee Rd. 46.0 Oil Well Rd. to 2U D 900 (EB) 2U 900 (EB) (CR 846) 47th Ave.NE 47th Ave. NE to Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) 46.0 SR 29 2U D 900 (EB) 900 (SB) 2U 900 (EB) 900 (SB) Wilson Blvd. 118.0 South of 2U D 2U Immokalee Rd. Golden Gate 17.0 Collier Blvd. to 4D D 2,300 (EB) 4D 2,300 (EB) Blvd. Wilson Blvd. 123.0 Wilson Blvd. to 4D D 2,300 (EB) 4D 2,300 (EB) Golden Gate Blvd. 1811 St NE/SE 2,000 EB ( ) Randall Blvd. 132.0 Immokalee Rd. to 8th St NE 2U D 900 EB ( ) 4D 811 St NE to Randall Blvd. 132.0 1611 St NE 2U D 900 (EB) 2U 900 (EB) 16th St NE to Randall Blvd. 132.0 2U D 900 (EB) 2U 900 (EB) Everglades Blvd. Randall Blvd. 133.0 Everglades Blvd. 2U D 900 (EB) 2U 900 (EB) to Desoto Blvd. Immokalee Rd. to Oil Well Rd. 119.0 4D D 2,000 (EB) 4D 2,000 (EB) Hawthorn Rd. Oil Well Rd. 2,000 (EB) 2,000 (EB) 119.0 Hawthorn Rd. to 4D D 4D Everglades Blvd. Everglades Blvd. Oil Well Rd. 120.0 2U D 1,100 (EB) 2U 1,100 (EB) to Desoto Blvd. Everglades Blvd. 135.0 South of Oil 2U D 800 (NB) 2U 800 (NB) Everglades Blvd. 136.0 Well Rd. North of Oil Well Rd. 2U AL D 800 (NB) 800 (NB) 2U Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D = 4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g P 1 14 Packet Pg. 337 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road— Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon (2025). The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Table 6 illustrates the LOS traffic impacts of the project to the area roadway network. o a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 15 Packet Pg. 338 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) 9.A.2.e BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road - Estates Commercial Subdistrict) - CPUD/GMPA - TIS -January 2021 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) - With Project in the Year 2025 2025 Peak Roadway % Vol Min LOS Min LOS CC Peak Dir,Peak Link Peak Capacity exceeded exceeded Roadway AUIR Roadway Link r, P DiPeak Hr Hr Dir, Peak Hr Impact without with Link Link ID Location Volume # Capacity (Project Vol w/ pro ect** by Project? Project? Volume Added)* Project Yes/No Yes/No Immokalee Collier Blvd. to Rd. (CR 846) 44.0 Wilson Blvd. 3,300 (EB) EB-49 3.254 1.5% No No Immokalee Wilson Blvd. to 45.0 3,300 (EB) EB -114 2,889 3.5% No No Rd. (CR 846) Randall Blvd. Immokalee Randall Blvd. 45.0 3,300 (EB) EB -164 2,939 5.0% No No Rd. (CR 846) to Project Immokalee 45.0 Project to 3,300 (EB) EB -142 2,917 4.3% No No Rd. (CR 846) Oil Well Rd. Oil Well Rd. to Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) 46.0 4711 Ave. NE 900 EB ( ) EB - 35 693 3.9% No No Immokalee 47' Ave. NE 46.0 900 (EB) EB -18 676 2.0% No No Rd. (CR 846) to SR 29 South of Wilson Blvd. 118.0 900 (SB) SB - 53 439 5.9% No No Immokalee Rd. Golden Gate Collier Blvd. to 17.0 2,300 (EB) EB -16 2,125 0.7% No No Blvd. Wilson Blvd. Golden Gate Wilson Blvd. to Blvd. 123.0 18t' St NE/SE 2,300 (EB) EB -18 1.608 0.8% No No Randall Immokalee Rd. Blvd. 132.0 to 8tn St NE 2,000 (EB) EB-53 1,014 2.7% No No Randall 8tn St NE to Blvd. 132.0 16t' St NE 900 (EB) EB - 35 996 3.9% Yes Yes Randall 16th St NE to 132.0 900 (EB) EB -18 979 2.0% Yes Yes Blvd. Everglades Blvd. Randall Everglades Blvd. 900 (EB) EB -18 753 a 2.0% No No Blvd.t133.0 to Desoto Blvd. Immokalee Rd. to Oil Well R9.0 2,000 (EB) EB - 89 1,456 4.5% No No Hawthorn Rd. Hawthorn Rd. to Oil Well Rd. 119.0 2,000 (EB) EB - 53 1,420 2.7% No No Everglades Blvd. Everglades Blvd. Oil Well Rd. 120.0 1,100 (EB) WB -16 598 o 1.5/ No No to Desoto Blvd. Everglades South of Oil 135.0 800 (NB) NB -16 492 2.0% No No Blvd. Well Rd. North of Oil Everglades 136.0 800 (NB) NB -18 670 2.3% No No L Blvd. Well Rd. to Table 3 from this report. **2025 Projected Volume = 2025 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Note(s): *Refer Volume added. C IL T C V m ao N M 0 0 0 N N O N J IL N O i 0 M v a Q C c m z v a c d E t M Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 16 Packet Pg. 339 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) 9.A.2.e BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road— Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Based on the information illustrated in Table 6, the following roadway segments are significantly impacted from a traffic perspective: Immokalee Road from Wilson Boulevard to 47th Avenue NE, Wilson Boulevard from Immokalee Road to Golden Gate Boulevard, Randall Boulevard from Immokalee Road to 16th Street NE, Oil Well Road from Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard north of Oil Well Road. Based on the data contained within the 2020 AUIR, the Randall Boulevard segment from 8th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard (Link ID #132.0) is shown to operate with a LOS deficiency in 2025 under background conditions. The Randall Boulevard segment is being evaluated through the Randall Boulevard Corridor Study (underway) and Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard intersection improvement PD&E (underway). As illustrated in Table 6, all other analyzed roadway links are projected to operate within Collier County's adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2025 future build -out conditions. Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) states that "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." The Developer proposes to provide a transportation mitigation plan in order to stay consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Collier County's GMP. The Developer may be required to assist the County with potential capacity/operational improvements that would provide sufficient capacity on the Randall Boulevard analyzed segment. It is noted that the Immokalee Road analyzed segments are Collier County designated hurricane evacuation routes as depicted in Collier County Transportation Element — Map TR - 7. Site Access Turn Lane Analysis Connection to subject project is expected to consist of a full movement access drive onto Immokalee Road (CR 846) at its intersection with Orange Tree Boulevard, which is currently a signalized intersection. Immokalee Road (CR 846) is a 6-lane urban divided arterial under Collier County jurisdiction, and has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Based on FDOT Standard Plans Index 711- 001, for a posted speed of 45 mph — urban conditions — the minimum turn lane length is 240 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. Project access is evaluated for turn lane warrants based on Collier County Right-of-way Manual: (a) two- lane roadways — 40 vph for right -turn lane/20 vph for left -turn lane; and (b) multi -lane divided roadways Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 17 Packet Pg. 340 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 — right turn lanes shall always be provided; and (c) when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left turn lanes. A dedicated westbound right -turn lane and a dedicated eastbound left -turn lane are warranted as the project meets the multi -lane criterion. Currently, there is an existing +/-340 foot eastbound left -turn lane servicing this intersection. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine traffic operational requirements, as more accurate parameters will be made available. Improvement Analysis Based on the data contained within the 2020 AUIR, the Randall Boulevard segment from 8th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard (Link ID #132.0) is shown to operate with a LOS deficiency under 2025 background conditions. All other roadway network facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Based on the traffic impact analysis results, the proposed project is a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. The Developer proposes to provide a transportation mitigation plan in order to stay consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Collier County's GMP. The Developer may be required to assist the County with potential capacity/operational improvements that would provide sufficient capacity on Randall Boulevard analyzed segment. The Mitigation Plan for the project is provided in the Mitigation of Impact section of this TIS. Consistent with the site access turn lane analysis results, site related turn lane improvements are warranted to accommodate traffic at build -out conditions. Per Collier County Right-of-way (ROW) Handbook Guidelines, if existing ROW is utilized for site related turn lane improvements, compensating ROW must be provided. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine traffic operational requirements, as more accurate parameters will be made available. The maximum total daily trip generation for the proposed development shall not exceed 681 two-way PM peak hour net new trips based on the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 18 Packet Pg. 341 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. The impact fees paid for by the project will compensate for the project impacts and specifically for the concurrency fair share portion required to restore the deficient roadway link 132 (Randall Blvd) as identified in this report (Table 6). The proposed access management approach for the project includes interconnection to future adjacent developments (both north and south) as well as connection modifications to the existing Orangetree Signal at Orangetree Blvd. The project access approach will provide efficient access and promote internal capture between the adjacent developments limiting trips on the adjacent roadway network. In addition, Vanderbilt Beach Road is being improved as a parallel facility to Randall Blvd, which will relieve traffic volumes on Randall Blvd. We believe our mitigation plan addresses the project's significant impacts on the roadways. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 19 Packet Pg. 342 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Appendix A: Project Master Plan Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA " - - 1 20 Packet Pg. 343 Wand 4 (3H313-8Zb£000ZZOZId : ZOV;Z) uoijeoijddd-d;uewy3ejjV :juewy3e44y BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 1MMOKALEE ROAD Z M o f f a OQ w r II A e ^ Li a w o rn Q r ro Q v Q 3 x u� N o 61) JM0 aYm LL ❑ rmo N O R z� C4 Fay w mE o =w w x U �N w Ix w F— z wW as LO ❑ Imo_ o wow ozLL o p z LL o LU 0 wz LL I �0 o j tom o aU m Nom 1 7F W �� W ❑ 3a ae z a =n DE < M F_ w� � (n �'LL W a Q w Q QLb QI- O O # wa W a J s, �, , W, LL6 0 W Q W F r W LU 11 ❑ co �. Z LLLLJ 0 w w I a d g ,2, Wcc W LLI W Z LI LL p S LLI p 7 a � � [if C] �` LL1 wz w �w I m d e p ❑I �r �� w `� i Uj =z y [n W'A' l l 1 } I 0 l - Ij -0 7. W o w ' 11l W LU� as 7 00 LL 1' LL7LL �U LL m LLI m a0 z �zw F } a 4 I d rn � w LU �{ l � 4I ¢ �o ° in w r� IL z ll ❑ ui w �< ¢W I ¢ �� ¢W o U] ❑ w— U) LL w J m d Q Ul ❑ d Q � Lu V5 u.f 'LYLI a LL 1��1 w IL W ui m ui LLJ UM ~� > F LU I 1 ` o J �z U_ H W — 4TH STREET N.E. o Q 2 0Ui o d U W J nU M 6 a Y V f0 a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 121 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA " - - 1 22 Packet Pg. 345 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e INITLXL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a vrorksheet to ensure thatno important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply, or ILIA (not applicable). Dale: October I5. 2020 Tune: NIA Location: NIA —Via Email Peonle Attending: Name., Organization, said Telephone Numbers I) Michael Sawyer. Collier County Growth Manasement Division 2) Norman TrebiIcock. TC.S 3) Daniel Dovle, TCS Study Prenarer• Preparer's Name and Title: Norman TrebilcocL AICP. PE Organization: Trebiicock Consulting Solutions. PA Address & Telephone Number: 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200, Naples, FL 34104 phi 239-566-9551 Ru%iewerfs): Reviewer's Name & Title: 1llichael Sawyer. Project Manager Collier County Transportation Planning Department Organization & Telephone Number: 239-252-2926 Applicant: Applicant's Naive: 0. Grady Muior and Associates. PA Address: 3800 Via DeI Rey. Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone Number: 239-947-0375 Proposed Development: Name: BCIID-I (flea Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) CPL-DiGMPA Location: West of Immokalee Road (C R 946). and directly west of the Immokalec road and Orange Tree Boulevard intersection, in Collier Coimty (refer to Figgre 1) Land Use Type: Retail, Medical Office ITF, Code '': 111C 820 Shopping Center, I,UC 720 Medical -Dental {?ffice Building;. Description: The 12roRosed Traffic. Impact Statement (TIS) will support the Commercial Planned i?nit Development (CPUD) and Orowth Managcment Plan Alnendmc.nt (0XIPA) lnr the BCHD-I project. The applicant proposes to analyze 2 development scenarios: Scenario 1 — develop an up to 200-000 square fact (sf) shopping centcr, and Scenario 2 — 150,000 sCshopping censer and 5 0- 00 0 sf of medical oI iee. '111e site is approximately 20 acres of currently vacant Iand. Page 1 of 6 C a T N 00 a O M a Q C r c m E z tt co a c d E t c� M Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g P 1 23 Packet Pg. 346 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e Figure I — Project Uwatiun Map N P ro}e ct t V Zoning Fisting: 1=states 11:1. Comprehensive plan recommendation: CPITD Requested: ajproval for tw% development Findings of the Preliminary Stud-: Stud}' Wpg: Sincc projected net external AM or PM pLaect traffic is Maier than R(X) two-way hour VjRs, this stud qualifies for a Maor TIS — sri Meant roadway and/or operational impacts. Proposed TIS will include trip ecmeratiom traffic distribution_ and assignments. significance (e+t (based on 20/6120/0% criterion). and operational silo ,icce'; analYS6, The report will Provide existing LOS and document the impact the Propo-sed chance will have on desisanated arterial and collector roads. Road%�a% concurrencv analysis — based on estimuled net uVemul PM traffic The TIS shall he consistent %%ith Col tier Counn TIS Guidelines and Priwudures Site Access — The alTlicant proM)sed one access connection on Immokalee Road. lmmokalce Road — segment from Wilx)n Blvd to Oil Well Road — Po."Iw SM-W — 4a UIP11. U!'`1gn Sneed — 45 mph. Q12mtional site access — TIS will include tam -lane warrant analysis only.. tntemal capture reductions are amsidered based on FIT and Collier Ctwnny guidelines recommendations. Pass-bv rates are based on Collier County TIS Guidelines. Page 2 of B t] a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a P 1 24 Packet Pg. 347 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e Stud,j pe: (il'not ncl incrcaw, operational study) Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ maior'flS Studv Arm: Boundaries: Adiacent street — east-Immokalee Road Additional intersections to be analyzed: N/A Build Out Year: 2025 Planning Horizon Year: 2025 Analysis Time Period(s): PM Peale Hour Future Off -Site Developments: N,.-'A Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation Manual. 10"' Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: N/A Pass -by trips: Bascd on CC guidelines and rct o nmcndations Internal trips: Based on ITE and QC guidelines and recontunendationt+g Transit use: NIA Other: N/A horizon Year Roadwav Network Improvements: 2025 Nlethodoloey & Assumptions: Non -site trafTic estimates: Collier County traffic counts and 2020 Al) 1R Site -trip generation: OTISS — ITE 10'h Edition Trip distribution method: Engineer's Fslimale - refer to Figure 2 Traffic assignment method: nroiect trip treneration ►►ith haL1around growth Traffic grmAlh rate: historical growth rate or 2QI) minimum 'fuming mov'entems: Site Accesx - 100" o proiecled tragic will access the parcel via Inimokalee Rd. Page 3 of 6 C a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g P 1 25 Packet Pg. 348 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) le BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Figure 2--Project Trip Distribution by Percentage Project Distribution by Percentage m$ T ABS = Absorption 5% E 10% �f Project � I apleS 40: L'e ABS � 50% 10%ABS TwinEa i 576i�5 5� Infor '°% i 35% 15% 5%ABS 5%ABS 3% S Page 4 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a P 1 26 Packet Pg. 349 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e Road I holluM: (I'rnm pf.limi11Un stud► cn prior raN6CIxcy Accidents locatitma 'v, -A 5i& distancc: Qwuing: _'J:;j .-Ucess iccathm & configuration: tiLA Traffic control: M11�I'C]) Signal syatsrnt location & progression needs: 4 Opt -site pariang neecls: Vats Sixlr;xAi CC 2020 ll1R: CC 'I'r;jITi: C'OBTWW Base maps: NA Prior study' reports: _access pin] icy and jruisdidion: �r Review process: Reyuircrnanb: Atlscellaneous: LA Small %warp Study No Foe Minix Study - S750-00 1lfajor Study - SI-500.00 1 Afctho"ugy Fee $500.00 .l' Inclu1e9 ❑ interKeelkws Additional Intersections . S501.00 esc:h Ili fees +ril( be AWmd to during Me Md*&A&4aM, mee7ing and ow sr be paid to TraNsponslrnn Pnor ro wr efJ uw Me Ly)p6.AdVH. SIGNA'I'UR S Noryy'po. TYlb400ckz Study' Vrcparer Norman I'rrhilcc%A Rev ic" er(s ) -kprgk. llni Page i of'd Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a P 1 27 Packet Pg. 350 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: 1Vlethodology Review, Analysis Review, and Sulfeiency Reviews. Nees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Xlethodolou_F1r Review - 5500 Fee Drlethodology Review includes rvo iew of a sulnnitted methodology statement, including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and re,6ew• of a "Small Stale Study" determination, written approval comments on a proposed methodology statement and written confirmation of a re -submitted, amended methodology statement, and one tneeting in Collier County, if needed- " Sin all Scale Study" Review - No Additional Fee (Includes one sufficiency reviews Upon approval of the methodology review, flue applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concun•ency determination site access inspection and contumation of the study compliance with trip generation, distribution and inaevnum threshold compliance. " Minor StudyRevije " - $750 Fee (Includes one sufficiency review} Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: optional Geld visit to site, confiunation of trip generation, distribution, and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed nnprmyements, review of traffic volume data collected'assembled, review of off -site improvements within the right-of-way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency" commentsr'questions. "Major Study Review" - $1,500 Fee (Includes two intersection analysis and tiro sufficienev reviews Review of the submitted Iraffic analysis includes: field visit to site. confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation andlor trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrmey determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of tragic volume data collectediassembled, review oftrafFic growth analysis, review of off site roadway operations and capacity analysis. review of site access and circulation, neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvt me°nt proposals and associated cost estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of "Nufliciency" comments/questions andlor reconunended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection ldeview" - 5500 Fee '11e review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the "Major Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the " N4ajor Study Rovicw" "additional Sufficiency Reviews" - $51Xf Fee Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. Page 6 of 6 C IL Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g P 1 28 Packet Pg. 351 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) 9.A.2.e BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road —Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Apuendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA " - - 1 29 Packet Pg. 352 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Project Information Immokalee Rd - Estates Commercial - Retail - Project Name: ITE 10th No: Date: 09/04/2019 City: State/Province: Zip/Postal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed Land Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit 820 - Shopping Center (General Urban/Suburban) 200 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 4816 4816 156 96 436 472 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by 722 723 39 24 109 118 Non -pass -by 4094 4093 117 72 327 354 Total 4816 4816 156 96 436 472 Total Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Internal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass -by 722 723 39 24 109 118 Total Non -pass -by 4094 4093 117 72 327 354 0 d Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA " - - 1 30 Packet Pg. 353 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: Daily Project Name : Immokalee Rd - Estates No: Commercial - Retail - ITE 10th Date: 9/4/2019 City: StatelPronince: ZiplPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed Land Use Independent Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total Variable 920 - Shopping Center 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 200 Weekday Best Fit (LOG) 4816 4816 9632 (General Ln(T)=D_68Ln(X) 50% 50% UrbanlSuburban) +5.57 TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Use Entry Reduction +Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 820 - Shopping Center 0'W 4816 01% 4a16 FEXTERNAL TRIPS Land Use External Trips Pass -by% Pass -by Trips Non -pass -by Tn ps 820 - Shopping Center 9632 15 1445 8187 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 31 Packet Pg. 354 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: AM Peak Hour Project Name: Immokalee Rd - Estates No: Go rn nn eFci al - Retail - IT 1 Dth Date: 9/4/2019 City: StatolProvinco: ZiplPostal Code: Gauntry: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed Land Use Independent Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total Variable 820 - Shopping Center 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 200 Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LI N) 156 96 252 (General Hour of Adjacent T = 0.5 {X +151.78 62% 38% UrbanlSuburban) Street Traffic: One Hour Bet-ween 7 and 9 a.m. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Use Reduction Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 820 - Shopping Center 0 % 156 0 % 96 EXTERNAL TRIPS Land Use External Trips Pass -by% Pass -by Trips Non -pass -by Trips 820-Shop pingCenter 252 25 63 189 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 32 Packet Pg. 355 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: PM Peak Hour Project Name : Immokalee Rd - Estates No Commerdal - Retail - ITE 1 Dth Date- 914I2019 City StateiProvince: ZipfPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed Land Use Independent Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total Variable 820 - Shopping Center 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 200 Weekday. Peak Best Fit (LOG) 436 472 908 (General Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.74Ln(X) 48% 52% UrbanfSuburhanj Street Traffic, +2.69 One Hour Bebroeen 4 and 6 p.m. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Use Reduction Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 820 - Shopping Center 0 % 436 0 % 472 Land Use 820 - Shopping Center EXTERNAL TRIPS External Trips Pass-by°k Pass -by Trips Non -pass -by Trips 906 (] 25 227 661 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 33 Packet Pg. 356 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 �L•J19 Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Entry Exit En" Exit Entry Exit 3961 396G 141 86 352 382 0 0 Q 0 0 0 256 37 8 4 25 8 S56 589 33 21 82 93 3149 3:iiS 100 61 245 281 517 915 94 27 48 1�4 0 0 0 0 4 0 37 255 .1 8 8 25 0 0 €} U 0 U 880 660 90 19 40 99 4978 487G 235 113 400 50G 0 0 0 0 0 4 293 293 1Z 12 33 33 S56 588 :�3 21 82 93 4029 3995 19�7 80 285 38[] Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 34 Packet Pg. 357 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name : Dally Project Name : Immokalee Rd - Estates No Commercial - Retail -Medical - ITE 10th Date: 9/4/2019 City: StatelProvince: Zip/Postal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed Land Use Independent Size Time Period Variable Method Entry Exit Total 820- Shopping Center 1D00 Sq. Ft. GLA 150 Weekday Best Fit (LOG) 3961 3960 7921 (General Ln(T) = 0.681.n(X) 50% 50 Urban/Suburban) +5.57 720- Medical -Dental 1000 Sq, Ft. GFA 50 Weekday Best Fit (LIN) 917 916 1833 Office Building T = 38.42 (X[ -87.62 50% 50% (General Urban/Suburban ) TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Use ReductionEntAdjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 82D - Shopping Center 0 % 3961 0 % 396D 72D- Medical -Dental Office Building 0 % 917 D I 916 INTERNAL TRIPS 820 - S hop p i ng Ce nter 720 - M ed i ca l-Denta l Office B u i Id i ng Exit 3960 Demand Exit: 2995 [1148] Balanced: Demand Entry: 4 % (37) Entry 917 Entry 3961 Demand Entry: 32 % (1268) Balanced. Demand Exit 28 % (256) Exit 916 256 Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA " - - 1 35 Packet Pg. 358 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 36 Packet Pg. 359 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: AM Peak Hour Project Name: Immokalee Rd - Estates No: Commercial - Retail -Medical - ITE 10th Date: 9/4/2019 City: State/Province: Zip/Postal Cade: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Generation Manual. 10th Ed Land Use Independent Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total Variable 820 - Shopping Center 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 150 Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LIN) 141 86 227 (General Hour of Adjacent T = 0.5 (X)+151.78 62°% 38% Urban/Suburban) Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 7 20 - Medical -Dental 1ODD Sq. Ft. GFA 50 Weekday, Peak BestFt(LOG) 94 27 121 CWce Building HourofAdjacent Ln(T)=0.89Ln(X) 78% 221 (General Street Traffic, +1.31 UrbaNSuburban) One Hour Between 7 and 9 am - TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Lard UseEnt Reduction Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 920 - Shopping Center 0 I 141 0 I 86 720 - Medical -Dental Cffce Building 0 % 94 0 °% 27 INTERNAL TRIPS 820 -Shopping Center T20 - Medical -Dental Office Building Exit 86 Demand Exit 29 % (25) Balanced: Demand Entry: 4 % (4) Entry 94 Entry 141 Demand Entry32 k (45) BalanBced: Demand Exit 28 "% (8) Exit 27 0 tl 2 U m 00 N 1* M O O O N N O N J d N 00 r L0 N C O r R t, .Q !Z a 0 c m E t V R Q C N E t V tB Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a P 1 37 Packet Pg. 360 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e 820 -Shopping Center Internal Trips Total Trips 720 - Medical -Del Office Building Entry 141 (100%) 8 (6%) Exit 86 (100%) 4 (5%) Total 227 (100%) 112 (9yo) 720 - Medical -Dental Office Building Total Trips Internal Trips 820-Shopping C Entry Exit 94 (100%) 27 (1001%) 4 (4%) 8 (30 A)) Tota l 121 (100%) 12 (10%) Land Use 82D - Shopping Center 720 - Medical -Dental Office Building EXTERNAL External Trip! 215 109 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 38 Packet Pg. 361 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 9.A.2.e PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: PM Peak Hour Project Name: Immokalee Rd - Estates No: Commercial - Retail -Medical - ITE 10th Date: 9/4/2019 C ity : StateiProvince: ZiplPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analysts Name: Edition: Trip Generation Manual, IOth Ed Land Use Independent Size Variable Time Period Method Entry Exit Total 820 - Shopping Center 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 150 Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) 352 382 734 (General Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.74Ln(X) 48% 52% UrbanlSuburbanl Street Traffic, +2.89 One Hour Betvveen 4 and 6 P.m. 720 - Medical -Dental 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 50 Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LIN) 48 124 172 Office Building Hour of Adjacent T = 3.39 (X)+2.02 28% 72% {General Street Traffic. Urban/suburban) One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Use Entry Reduction 820 - Shopping Center 0 % 720 - Medical -Dental Office Building 0 % Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 352 0 % 382 48 0 % 124 INTERNAL TRIPS 820 - Shopping Center 720 . Medical -Dental Office Building Exit 382 Demand Exit 2 % (8) BalanBced: Demand Entry. 31 % (15) Entry 48 Entry 3552 Demand Entry: 8 % (28) Balanced: Demand Exit 20 % (25) Exit 124 Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a P 1 39 Packet Pg. 362 TIS SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL GMPA (PL20160000221 AND CPUD ZONING (PL20200000546) BCHD-1(fka Immokalee Road — Estates Commercial Subdistrict) — CPUD/GMPA — TIS —January 2021 820 - Shoppinq Center Total Trips Internal Trips. External Trips T20 - Medical -Dental Office Building Total Entry Exit 352 (100%) 362 (100%) 25 (7°A) 6 (2%) 25 (7%) S (2%) 327 (93°Ao) 374 (96%) Total 734 (1DO%,:1 133 (4%) 33 (.4'%) 701 (96%) 720 - Medical -Dental Office Building Total Trips Internal Trips External Trips 020 - Shopping Center ITotal Entry Exit 48 (100'% .I 124 (100%) 8 (17'A,) 25 (20%) 8 (17'% j 25 f20°Al 40 (83%) 99 (80%) Total 172(100%1 33 (19%) 3309%) 139 f.8m) Land Use 820 - Shop ping Center 720 - Medical -Dental Office Bui I d 1 n g EXTERNAL TRIPS External Trips Pass-hy% 701 ❑ 25 139 0 Pass -try Trips Non -pass -by Trips 175 526 0 139 I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 140 Packet Pg. 363 9.A.2.e PENINSULA�j ENGINEERING BCHD I COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT DEVIATIONS & JUSTIFICATION Deviation #4: Relief from LDC Section 5.05.08.F.2.b.ii.b) which requires projects on corner lots to provide no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial building or project to be located between any primary fagade and the abutting street, with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the required parking to instead allow a commercial project to provide 100 percent of the required parking between the primary fagade and abutting street when in support of a shopping center adjacent to Immokalee Road. Justification: The northern commercial tract of the PUD is a corner lot with street frontages along Immokalee Road to the east and Orangetree Boulevard to the south and preservation areas to the north and west. As required by the PUD Commitment 3.c., a vehicular and pedestrian interconnection is to be provided to the existing Estates zoned properties to the north consistent with the PUD Master Concept Plan. This access point is located on the northeast corner of the PUD, adjacent to Immokalee Road. The commercial tract is anticipated to be developed as a commercial shopping center. The proposed shopping center is proposed to be located on the western boundary of the tract with direct access and exposure to Immokalee Road which is necessary to remain viable in the marketplace. This layout allows for the required interconnection to the north and logically locates the loading and service uses ("back of house") adjacent to the preservation tract where it can be screened from the adjacent roadways and residential uses. The deviation is necessary to provide smooth traffic flow that minimizes hazards for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The parking area will be adequately screened from Immokalee Road with a 20-foot wide Type D buffer. W •r_r PL20220003428, BCHD I PUDA Revised December 14, 2022 Page 1 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Packet Pg. 364 9.A.2.e UIA7 ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA PREPARED BY: PENINSULA ENGINEERING 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34105 MAY 2020 REVISED OCTOBER 2020 REVISED SEPTEMBER 2022 BRUCE LAYMAN, SPWS Packet Pg. 365 PENINSULAt ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 3 2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................3 2.1. Listed Wildlife Survey....................................................................................................................3 2.2. Listed Plant Survey........................................................................................................................4 2.3. Habitat/Wetland Mapping............................................................................................................4 3. SURVEY RESULTS...................................................................................................................................5 3.1. Listed Wildlife Species Observed/Identified On Site..................................................................... 5 3.2. Listed Wildlife Species Not Observed On -Site But With Potential to Occur On Site .................... 5 3.3. Listed Plant Species Observed On Site..........................................................................................7 3.4. Habitat/Wetland Mapping —Native Preserve............................................................................... 7 4. SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................8 5. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................................ 9 TABLES Table 1 - Listed Species and Vegetation Survey Details.............................................................................. 10 Table 2 - Listed Plant and Wildlife Species Observed.................................................................................10 Table 3 - Non -listed Wildlife Species Observed.......................................................................................... 11 Table 4 - Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non -Observed Listed Faunal Species ........................... 11 Table 5 - Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non -Observed Listed Floral Species ............................. 12 Table 6A - Existing Vegetative Associations and Land Uses Within CPUD................................................. 12 Table 6B - Existing Vegetative Associations and Land Uses Within Addition ............................................. 12 APPENDICES Appendix A - Existing Vegetation Association & Land Use Descriptions FIGURES Figure 1— Existing Conditions Figure 2 — Bear Incident Location Map 9.A.2.e 2 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 366 1. 2. PENINSULA+, ENGINEERING 13CHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA INTRODUCTION Peninsula Engineering (PE) entered into an agreement with BCHD Partners I LLC (BCHD) to provide environmental services associated with a 19.13-acre parcel known as BCHD1 CPUD (f.k.a. Immokalee Road —Estates Commercial Subdistrict). The rezoning effort resulted in Ordinance 2021-20 which was adopted on April 27, 2021. Subsequently, BCHD expanded the subject property by acquiring the adjacent 2.69-acre parcel to the north (i.e., the Addition). This Environmental Data report includes the data supporting the 19.13-acre property that resulted in Ordinance 2021-20, as well as the data associated with the addition of the 2.69 acres and the associated land plan, as revised. Data associated with the Addition will be so notes in the report. The Environmental Data author credentials include full-time employment as an Environmental Consultant/Ecologist in Lee and Collier Counties since 1992. The Addition is located in Section 22; Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The parcel is bordered on the north by undeveloped land, on the east Immokalee Road and high -density residential development, on the west by estate -style residential development, and on the south by approved BCHD1 CPUD. The Addition parcel is entirely forested, contains low to moderate exotic vegetation coverage. Historical hydrology has been adversely affected by regional development. The protected species surveys were conducted, and the results summarized herein, to support local, state, and federal environmental permitting. PROJECT METHODOLOGY Bruce Layman, Ecologist with PE, conducted listed species surveys consistent Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Objective 7.1 and its implementing policies and with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission standards on the CUPID property during September 2018. The dates, times and weather conditions are summarized in Table 1. Due to the passage of 12 months, the survey on the CPUD property was updated in September 2019, and again in September 2021, to determine whether site conditions remained consistent with those observed in September 2018. A similar listed species survey was conducted on the Addition parcel during August 2022. The following information describes the methodologies employed: 2.1. Listed Wildlife Survey Prior to conducting the listed species surveys, color aerial imagery and FLUCCS mapping from prior environmental reconnaissance were reviewed to anticipate which habitats may be present Various publications and databases were also reviewed to identify listed plant and wildlife species that are regionally present and that could occur and those habitat types. Based on the habitat types identified on site, a preliminary list of state and federal listed flora and fauna that could occur on the project site was generated to help focus survey effort. FWC's Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (FWC, 2016) was used to determine the "listed" state and federal status designation of wildlife species. The 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022 field surveys consisted of one ecologist performing east/west parallel meandering pedestrian transects spaced approximately 50 to 120 feet on center based on habitat type and visibility limits. These transects are illustrated on Figure 1 entitled Existing Conditions. Additional wandering transects were conducted on successive days, and during the species survey updates, to augment survey coverage and increase the opportunity to observe wildlife. Wandering transects are not shown. The field observer was equipped with a compass, 9.A.2.e 3 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 367 9.A.2.e PENINSULA+, ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA GPS, color aerial, wildlife and plant identification books, binoculars, and a field notebook. During pedestrian transects, the ecologist periodically stopped, looked for wildlife, signs of wildlife, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Due to habitats present and likelihood of occurrence (not to the exclusion of other potential listed species), the ecologist specifically surveyed for the potential presence of the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and trees containing cavities that could have been potentially created by the red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) or could be used by the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus; FBB) for roosting. Given the nature of the parcel, the ecologist is anticipated to have directly observed greater than 0 70% of the parcel. a If observed, the approximate location of observed listed wildlife species and their numbers were o mapped on an aerial and recorded in a field notebook. The locations of fixed resources, such as = U gopher tortoise burrows or cavity trees were recorded using hand-held GPS and flagged with00 m high -visibility survey ribbon. Non -listed wildlife species were recorded daily. cli M 2.2. Listed Plant Survey c 0 Over the course of conducting surveys for listed wildlife, the PE ecologist searched for plants c listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture (FDA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). C4 These agencies have categorized the various plant species based upon their relative abundance in a natural communities. Those categorizations include "Endangered", "Threatened", and 04 "Commercially Exploited". n N The protection afforded plants listed solely by FDA entails restrictions on harvesting or destroying r_ plants found on private lands of another, or public lands, without permission and/or a permit ° from FDA. Unless the sale of plants is involved, there are no state restrictions for landowners to 2 impact such plants. These provisions are found in Section 581.185, FDA under State law. a Q The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03 — Requirements for Protected o Plants identifies 5 specific plant species as "rare" and 5 additional epiphytic plant species as "less rare". The named plants are required to be protected in accordance with Section 3.04.03 E conditions. r r 2.3. Habitat/Wetland Mapping Q The habitat and wetland survey included the preparation of a Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) map delineating the major vegetation communities and land uses present on the project site. A FLUCCS Map for the BCHD1 project site and the Addition is provided as Figure 1 entitled Existing Conditions. The methods and class descriptions found in the FLUCCS manual (FDOT, 1999) were followed when delineating and assigning areas to an appropriate FLUCCS category (class) or "codes". Preliminary wetland limits were mapped using the standard state and federal wetland delineation methodologies and direct field observations and aerial photo interpretation. Color aerial photos were plotted at 1" = 50' scale and were used in the field to map the vegetative communities on the site. 4 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 368 3 PENINSULA+, ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA An important factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion by the exotic plant species, such as melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). Four levels of exotic density are typically recognized. Code modifiers may be appended to the base FLUCCS code to indicate the approximate density of exotic vegetation in the canopy or understory, as follows: EO = Exotics <10% E1 = Exotics 10-24% E2 = Exotics 25-49% E3 = Exotics 50-75% E4 = Exotics 75<% Wet season high water (WSHW) elevation was estimated in the BCHD1 CPUD wetland using hydrobiological indicators including stain lines and moss collars. Triplicate WSHW elevations were marked in the field, and they were surveyed, and the average WSHW elevation was 13.41' NAVD. SURVEYRESULTS 3.1. Listed Wildlife Species Observed/Identified On Site No state -listed or federally listed wildlife species were observed on site during the 2018 listed species survey on the BCHD1 CPUD property. Observations made during the September 2019 and 2021 listed species survey updates reflect that site conditions had not changed from those observed in 2018. Similarly, no state -listed or federally listed wildlife species were observed on the Addition property during the 2022 listed species survey. With no listed species observed during these surveys, the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with CCME Policy 7.1. Neither parcel contained US Fish and Wildlife Service -designated listed species critical habitat. All non -listed wildlife species, either directly observed or audibly detected on site during any of the surveys, are listed in Table 3. Signs observed in the field (scat, clawed trees), regional bear incident data from FWC (Figure 2), photographic eyewitness accounts of an adult bear on adjacent property from neighbors, and direct on -site observation of a juvenile bear, confirm that bears (Ursus americanus floridanus) occasionally occur on site. Though the black bear is no longer listed as protected, the FWC is likely to suggest conservation measures, during the state Environmental Resource Permitting Process, to protect the species. 3.2. Listed Wildlife Species Not Observed But With Potential to Occur On Site The following is a discussion of listed wildlife species that were not observed during either survey, but which are considered to have potential to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat, confirmed sightings in the region, or the parcel's being located within the consultation area for a given species. Species with greater than zero potential to occur on site are summarized in Table 4. Both parcels fall within the consultation areas of both the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens) and the snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis). Since neither parcel contains habitat that is reasonably suitable for use by either species, these are not considered potential users of the site. 9.A.2.e 5 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 369 PEN INSUJLA 9.A.2.e ENGINEERINGA BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is listed as Threatened by the FWC and it is not listed by FWS. Given the presence of pine flatwoods on site, this species was considered to be potentially present. No signs of the species (i.e., burrows, scat) were observed on either parcel during the listed species surveys and they are no longer considered a candidate to occur on site. The Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia; BCFS) is listed as Threatened by FWC and its distribution is believed to be limited to an area south of the Caloosahatchee River and west to the Everglades. The BUS is usually associated with FLUCCS codes 411, 621, and 624 and prefers habitats with open park -like mid -story and groundcover strata. Such areas on site are small and isolated. Since site conditions are not conducive to use by this species and no evidence of the BUS (i.e., direct sightings, nests, day beds, etc.) was observed on site during any of the surveys, it a - is anticipated that the potential for this species to occur on either parcel is near zero. o Due to the presence of on -site wetlands, a suite of listed wading birds could potentially use the site to forage. It includes the wood stork (Mycteria americana), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), and reddish egret (Egretta rufescens). These species could opportunistically forage in the wetland; however, the existing density of midstory and groundcover vegetation make it less likely. No wading bird rookeries were observed on either site, nor are any known to be on adjacent properties. The site falls within the core foraging area (18.6 miles) of at least three (3) wood stork colonies. The red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis; RCW) is listed as Endangered by FWS and both parcels are located on the periphery of the FWS consultation area for this species. No RCW cavity trees were observed on either site during the listed species surveys, nor were any RCW vocalizations detected. Though the slash pine trees could be used for foraging if an RCW clan was regionally present, RCW clans typically require hundreds of contiguous acres of pine forest for foraging and nesting. With the nearest RCW occurrence record being 7 — 9 miles southwest of the project site in proximity to City Gate (per the FWC RCW occurrence data base), it appears that there is little reasonable potential for the RCW to use the pine flatwood habitat present on either site. The Florida panther (Fells concolor coryi) is listed as Endangered by FWS and both parcels fall within Secondary panther habitat. Per the FWC data base, a single panther telemetry point was located 0.2 miles north of the project site in 2014. It was associated with a 2.5-year-old male that subsequently died that year several miles to the south of unknown causes. Later, in 2018, cat #251 recorded eight (8) points over a two -month period ranging between 0.51 and 0.98 miles to the south of the project in the residential estate properties. The developed nature of the region and the general lack of regular use of the region by collared cats suggests that the project site is not likely part of a panther travel corridor or an active home range for collared panthers. The Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus; FBB) is listed as Endangered by FWS and the site falls within the FWS consultation area for this species. There is relatively little known about the life -history needs of the species; however, it has been suggested in the literature that roosts may be a limiting resource for this bat. As such, the ecologist specifically searched for trees with cavities that could potentially be used for roosting by the FBB. In 2018, the site contained numerous pines that had recently died, presumably due to stress resulting from Hurricane Irma and subsequent beetle infestation. However, few contained woodpecker cavities and the cavities that were present were either shallow or of small diameter. None exhibited signs of use by bats such as smudging, audible chatter, or the presence of guano. Many of the dead pined observed in 2018 had fallen by September 2021. 6 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 370 9.A.2.e PEN INSUJLA ENGINEERINGA BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA A tree cavity survey was conducted on the CPUD parcel in October 2021. Seven trees with cavities were documented and their contents were observed via wireless video camera. No bats were observed occupying the cavities. Those cavities that remained intact in August 29022 were viewed, again, using a wireless video camera. Again, no bats were observed roosting in the cavities. Additionally, a cavity tree survey was conducted in August 2022 in the Addition parcel. No trees with cavities were observed. Given the results of the multiple surveys on both properties, it appears unlikely that bonneted bats roost on either parcel. Given that the FBB is known to travel great distances to forage, and given the proximity of the site to large forested areas to the north that may contain natural roosts, it is assumed that FBB's roosting regionally would have the potential to commute or forage over the parcel. The Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) is listed as Endangered by FWS. Indigo snakes inhabit pine forests, hardwood hammocks, scrub and other uplands. They also rely heavily on a variety of wetland habitats for feeding and temperature regulation needs. Though none were observed on site, it is typically assumed by FWS that there is potential for this species to be present. Adhering to the FWS standard Eastern Indigo Snake Protection Precautions may be proposed during State 404 permitting as a means to sufficiently protect the species. Though the bald eagle (Holiaeetus leucocephalus) is not state or federally listed, it is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. No eagle nest was observed on either site. Per the FWC Eagle Nest Locator website, https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/ nestlocator.aspx), the nearest known eagle nest (nest C0103) is located approximately 4.0 miles east-northeast of the parcels. The site is located well beyond the protection zones of that nest. 3.3. Listed Plant Species Observed On Site Three (3) species of listed plants (per the FDA list) were observed on site during the CPUD field survey. The species observed were the stiff -leafed wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), Northern needleleaf (Tillandsia balbisiana), and the butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis). Both Tillandsia species were also observed within the Addition parcel. All three are listed as "less rare" by Collier County and all three are represented in the proposed on -site preserve. The Tillandsia species were relatively abundant; however, the butterfly orchid was limited to a few small plants. They were typically located on pine and cypress trees. No plant species listed by FWS were observed during the field surveys. The listed plant species observed, and their state and federal listing status, are provided in Table 2. 3.4. Habitat/Wetland Mapping — Native Preserve Natural areas of the project site are comprised primarily of pine flatwood, cypress, and pine - cypress -cabbage palm communities. All three communities on site fit Collier County's definition of native habitat. Based upon the proposed commercial use of the property, a minimum of 15% of the existing native vegetation (i.e., 3.26 acres) would need to be preserved to be consistent with CCME Policy 6.1.1 and Collier County Land Development Code requirement. The location and composition of the preserve associated with the approved CPUD was established per hierarchy criterion 3.05.07(A)(4)(a) given the potential use of the cypress wetland by listed species. Since the CPUDA is adding land of the same habitat composition and function, reconfiguration of the previously -approved preserve is consistent with the LDCs preserve hierarchy criteria. Per the Master Plan provided in support of the proposed County CPUDA, a minimum of 3.26 acres of native habitat are proposed to be preserved on site and the project is consistent with CCME Policy 6.1.1. The FLUCCS code for each community along with a brief description and acreage are 7 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 371 4. 9.A.2.e PENINSULA+, ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA provided in Tables 6A and 6B and a detailed description of each FLUCCS code is provided in AppendixA. Historic on -site hydrology appears to be adversely affected as a result of surrounding development. Based upon current field conditions, and application of state wetland delineation methodologies, there are 3.85 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the CPUD parcel, and it is estimated that there are 1.21 acres on the Addition parcel. The 1.21-acre area, mapped as FLUCCS 621-Cypress on the Existing Conditions figure, has not been verified by either the South Florida Water Management District or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Verification will take place during state and federal environmental permit review. Based upon hydrobiological indicators, WSHW elevation was determined to be 13.41' NAVD. a SUMMARY Results of the surveys on both the CPUD and the Addition parcels reflect a lack of state or federally listed wildlife and a lack of federally listed plant species. The protection afforded by the state for the FDA -listed stiff -leaved wild pine, Northern needleleaf, and butterfly orchid observed on site entails restrictions on harvesting or destroying plants found on private lands of another, or public lands, without permission and/or a permit from FDA. There are no state restrictions for landowners unless the sale of plants is involved. Collier County identifies these three species as "less rare" and has requirements for their protection. However, since all three are represented within the on -site preserve, relocation of specimens out of harm's way is not required. It will likely be assumed by FWS during the federal permitting process that there is potential for the Eastern indigo snake to occur on both parcels. Similarly, based upon current FWS procedure, it will also likely be assumed by FWS that the project may affect the bonneted bat since the project is over 5 acres in size and more than one acre of bonneted bat habitat will be adversely affected. Adhering to the FWS standard Eastern Indigo Snake Protection Precautions and providing project -specific data documenting the lack of on -site bonneted bat roosting activity are likely to sufficiently address FWS's concerns in order to sufficiently protect both species. Though not listed by either FWC or FWS, the black bear may come up as a point of discussion during the state Environmental Resource Permitting process. Measures to educate the end user of the land, and protection of the bear during and after construction, are likely to be addressed at that time. The current assessment of the Addition parcel anticipates that there are approximately 1.21 acres of state and federal jurisdictional wetlands within its 2.69 acres. The wetlands will be addressed during the state and federal environmental permitting processes. Based upon a proposed commercial land use and its required 15% preservation of native vegetation, a minimum of 3.26 acres of native preserve will need to be identified and preserved as part of the CPUDA during Collier County development review. 8 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 372 5 PENINSULA+, ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REFERENCESCITED Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species, Official List. Tallahassee, Florida. Weaver, R.E. and P.J. Anderson. 2010. Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants, Contribution No. 38, 5th edition. 9.A.2.e 9 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 373 PENINSULA+ 9.A.2.e r-NGlNFr—plkJC, BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA TABLES a 9 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 374 PENINSULA7 -. ENGINEERING"+ BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Table 1: Listed Species and Vegetation Survey Details Ecologist Date Time of Day Weather Field Hours Bruce Layman 9/12/18 7:45 a.m. -1:30 p.m. 76°, partly cloudy, wind 0 mph 5.75 Bruce Layman 9/13/18 7:15 a.m. -10:00 a.m. 78% partly cloudy, wind 0 mph 2.75 Bruce Layman 9/14/18 7:15 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. 74°, partly cloudy, wind 0 mph 2.75 Bruce Layman 9/17/18 4:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. 94°, partly cloudy, wind 0 mph 2.50 Bruce Layman 9/19/18 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. 92°, clear, wind 0 mph 2.00 Bruce Layman 9/05/19 8:00 a.m. — 2:30 p.m. 77°, clear, wind 0 mph 6.50 Bruce Layman 9/17/21 9:30 a.m. —4:00 p.m. 82% partly cloudy, south wind 5 mph 6.5 Bruce Layman 8/17/22 9:00 a.m. —11:00 a.m. 81% partly cloudy, calm 2.0 Total Hours 30.75 Table 2: Listed Plant and Wildlife Species Observed Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Where Observed By FLUCCS FWC status FWS Status FDA Status PLANTS Stiff -leaved wild -pine Tillandsia fasciculata 411, 624D, 621 N/A NL E Butterfly orchid Encyclia tamepensis 411 N/A NL CE Northern needleleaf Tillandsia balbisiono 624D N/A NL T WILDLIFE Florida black bear* Ursus americanus floridanus 411, 624D, 621 NL NL N/A FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish &Wildlife Service CE = Commercially Exploited T = Threatened E = Endangered NL = Not Listed N/A = Not Applicable * = Not listed by FWC or FWS, but protection measures typical 9.A.2.e C a 10 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 375 PENINSULA7 -. ENGINEERING"+ BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Table 3: Non -listed Wildlife Species Observed Common Name Scientific Name BIRDS Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Blue -gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Red -bellied woodpecker Centurus carolinus Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Barred owl Strix varia Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES Cuban anole Anolis s. sagrei Southern black racer Coluber constrictor Water moccasin Agkistrodon piscivorus MAMMALS Nine -banded armadillo* Dasypus novemcinctus Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Florida black bear* Ursus americanus floridanus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus * Species not directly observed. Signs of species presence observed (e.g., burrow, tracks, scat, remains, etc.) Table 4: Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non -Observed Listed Faunal Species Estimated Occurrence* Common Name Scientific Name Status (FWC/FWS) Probable Possible Unlikely Listed wading birds Red -cockaded woodpecker Florida panther Big Cypress fox squirrel Florida bonneted bat Eastern indigo snake Habitat by FLUCCS BIRDS various I I I X 621 Picoides borealis I E/E X 411 MAMMALS Felis concolor coryi E/E X 411, 621, 624D Sciurus niger avicennia T/NL X 411, 621, 624D Eumops floridanus E/E X 411, 621, 624D REPTILES Drymarchon corais couperi T/T X 411, 621, 624D FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service FDA = Food and Drug Administration SSC = Species of Special Concern T =Threatened E = Endangered C = Commercially Exploited NL = Not listed Probable Occurrence = >50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Possible Occurrence = <50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Unlikely Occurrence = <5% estimated chance of occurrence on site. 9.A.2.e Q 11 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 376 PENINSULA. FNGINURING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Table 5: Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non -Observed Listed Floral Species Status Estimated Occurrence* Common Name Scientific Name (FDA/FWS) Probable Possible Unlikely Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata E/NL X FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service FDA = Food and Drug Administration SSC= Species of Special Concern T =Threatened E =Endangered C = Commercially Exploited NL = Notlisted * Probable Occurrence = >50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Possible Occurrence = <50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Unlikely Occurrence = <5% estimated chance of occurrence on site. ** There is potential for an eagle to construct a nest on site at a later date, though the probability is low. Table 6A: Existing Vegetative Associations and Land Uses Within CPUD FLUCCS CODE FLUCCS DESCRIPTION East Parcel Acres 411 Pine Flatwoods, Palmetto understory 8.84 621 Cypress 3.85 624D Pine -Cypress -Cabbage Palm, Drained 6.32 814 Roads and Highways 0.12 TOTAL 19.13 Table 613: Existing Vegetative Associations and Land Uses Within Addition FLUCCS CODE FLUCCS DESCRIPTION East Parcel Acres 411 Pine Flatwoods, Palmetto understory 0.98 621 Cypress 1.21 624D Pine -Cypress -Cabbage Palm, Drained 0.50 OTAL 2.69 abitat by FLUCCS 621, 624D 9.A.2.e Q P:\Active_P roj ects\P-BCH D-004\002_BCH D-1-PU DA_G M PA\Su bm itta Is\Co u my 12 Packet Pg. 377 PENINSULA s.A.2.e rl�`Ir�arr?i�ar- .r, BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA d APPENDIX A o Existing Vegetative Association & Land Use Descriptions 13 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 378 PEN INS ULAt ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Existing Vegetative Association & Land Use Detailed Descriptions Pine Flatwoods — Palmetto Understory (FLUCCS 411) — This community is dominated in the canopy by slash pine (Pinus elliotti), with a minor component of cabbage palm (Saba) palmetto) and cypress (Taxodium distichum). The midstory includes live oak (Quercus virginiana), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and stunted cypress. Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) is scattered and represents a dominant species in the groundcover. Other species include beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), Caesarweed (Urena lobata), love vine (Cassytha filiformis), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Vines are locally abundant and include muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy o (Toxicodendron radicans), and cat briar (Smilax rotundifolia). a Cypress (FLUCCS 621) - This community is dominated in the canopy by cypress, with red maple (Acer rubrum), cabbage palms, and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) as subdominants. The midstory is relatively open and includes red maple, cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), max myrtle (Morelia cerifera), and dahoon holly. Groundcover is dominated by locally abundant swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum) with pockets of maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) and beak -rush (Rhynchospora microcarpa). Pine — Cypress — Cabbage Palm - Drained (FLUCCS 624D) - This community is dominated in the canopy by slash pine, cabbage palm, ear -leaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and minor cypress. The midstory ranges from relatively open to dense with slash pine, earleaf acacia, cocoplum, cypress, and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) dominating. Groundcover includes Caesarweed, cocoplum, beautyberry, swamp fern and chain fern (Woodwardia spp.). Vines are locally abundant and include muscadine grape and cat briar. Roads and Highways (FLUCCS 814) — This represents the right of way of 4th Street NE including driving surface and maintained shoulders. 14 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 379 PEN INSU7A� BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FIGURE 1 Existing Conditions a 15 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 380 PENINSULA ENGINEERING BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA t ME .- - - - - - - -r�rrrLrr---r.r+� 11 627 624D r-------- -------------------- - ....... 1 N rr _`� - ....--. as -... .��� r ■ r r r r r 621 �r ----- ----- ------' — - \. Imo... - rr - `\�- 41I r ............`... .------ti---- — . --. .' r \``a r a � r -.r-----r----.......... ---------- --I r' - r i-r-----------------r---_------ - ---e ' a _ r r p�Y ll PROJECT w I _ .��... .................... 4_..rrr...r.— BOUNDARY (TYP) - r � 624D i �I---------,--n---....-rr �•-•r~---rrrr--.1• t r { L 1 � r � a,1.—rrr. ........ ................. r � r � r � � I --r--------r ~ -• ...n n.r rrrrf LEGEND BCHD1 CPVD BO17#1DARY T� T� BCH01 CPUD AMENDIA ENT BOUNDARY FLUCC3 LIMITS ----. MEAK0F;RVC; PEDESTRIAN TRASECT 4APPROK,j PRE1W,rNARY WETLANDS (NOT AGENCY REVIEWED OR APPROVED) AGENCY APPROVED WETLAND LIMES FLUCC5 ARCODE DESCRIPTION EA 411' PINE FLATWDODS 9 64 82t' CYPRESS 3 BS B24O' PFNE-�:YPRESS-CADRAGE PALM. 6 32 DISTURBEID 814 ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 0.12 SUBTOTAL SCHOI CPUD 19.13 'NATIVE RABITAT PER COWER COUNTY FLUCC AREA DESCRIPTION CODE (AC) 411' PINE FLATWOODS 0.06 621' CYPRESS t.21 624D' PINE-CYPRESSC-A9BAGE PALM. 050 DISTLRSED 5LIEITCITALBCHDI CPIJDAMENDMENT 2.69 'NATVE I"ITATFER COIIJER COIJNT MRO&C'T TITLE ovW1FF UPNTIGONSULTAT/r: SEC IMMOKALEE I E}CISTING ENGJNEERLNG ROAD - .::. ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT CONDITIONS - BCHD PARTNERS WETLAND AND 1, L.C. FLUCCS C-1 01 03 or 1 a T_ a 16 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 381 PEN INSU7A� BCHD1 CPUD AMENDMENT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FIGURE 2 Bear Incident Location Map a 17 P:\Active_Projects\P-BCHD-004\002_BCHD-I-PUDA_GMPA\Submittals\County Packet Pg. 382 # r. ' - *.' � - •_ -. .,r},.�pC. 4 :,+� 1. �J - Y F ' . 4 4 1y •�,y Tv, �' r#rr } � _ _ •� r � V � 4 'TSB. �i,� li zi y.l�,rq -i- .. r!r ' o-! ti r3i�`� - ,'I �Lr ��'i � •�{.ti:} �. �--:. -- Rr�"� t+ a :�'�i' � F4a• .N � pr '- � _ 4 �. ���k' � -'iG� ` `�•.a ..r fki � ' Legend ��••- is +!+- p 1 Property Elouridary pa2 69 iacre Adcliban- q ;uJca_: art-!_�r�o=,J x>-•fiv°,Jra¢' , 9 �•U5 �. BCHD1 CPUD Amendment Bear Incident Locations Through August 2022 9.A.3 05/04/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Doc ID: 24794 Item Summary: PL20190001540 - Brookside Marina (Rezone) - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Single Family 4 (RSF-4) Zoning District to a General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District limited to a marina use, for the property located on Davis Boulevard approximately 2/10 of one mile east of Tamiami Trail East in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 4.4± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Planner 111] Meeting Date: 05/04/2023 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Tim Finn 04/03/2023 9:03 AM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 04/03/2023 9:03 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Zoning James Sabo Review Item Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending Completed 04/11/2023 1:58 PM Review Item Completed 04/18/2023 3:32 PM Completed 04/19/2023 9:53 AM Skipped 04/20/2023 2:15 PM Completed 04/20/2023 2:30 PM Completed 04/26/2023 11:24 AM 05/04/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 384 9.A.3.a Goffie' T GO-Uffty 000110%� %W0%.- -ft. STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 4, 2023 SUBJECT: RZ-PL20190001540; BROOKSIDE MARINA Owner: Naples Marina Holdings, LLC 801 E. Venice Avenue Venice, FL 34285 REOUESTED ACTION: Agent: Clay C. Brooker, Esq. Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 Fifth Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 The applicant is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend 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 Residential Single Family-4 (RSF-4) Zoning District to a General Commercial District (C-4) Zoning District limited to a marina use. The subject property is located on Davis Boulevard approximately 2/10 of one mile east of Tamiami Trail East, in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 4.4+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (See location map, page 2). RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Revised: March 30, 2023 Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 385 ((ZM) euiJew apisMooJ8 - OMOOMOZ-1d : V6LVZ) (Z21) euiaew apismooa8 -podall lies :;uauay3L'jjV ri 00 Q Cl) � a Y ICI - � Fu 0 R V .l ln'f25 g ® L/0 nn s o (1 � ■�YiGi AhEYA00do � 0 ^ u 0. u � � F J r ty I ❑ Li ® L ' X x 0 � 1 i l W E) L p w 0- 1 J C] < u Z p nc� y aJL FjIW L.N n r - •� f.S i5 i f � f I p [III vc r � O� e a a ❑ aAlsyu�l,it� 6t Rt — _ VS tbd � 0 W G 1% 0 W a Idyelnti d d IL J e LJ 0. a m 4: RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Revised: March 30, 2023 CL 0 N LO T CD CD CD T {v J d L zi „v_+ W (Q J Page 2 of 11 V a 9.A.3.a PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The approximate 4.4-acre subject property is currently zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4) district. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject site to General Commercial (C-4) district to permit water -dependent and related uses. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Developed with single-family residential with a current zoning designation of Residential Single Family (RSF-4) district South: Developed with commercial uses and open boat storage with a current zoning designation of General Commercial within the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) district East: Brookside Drive (local road) the developed with single family residential with a current zoning designation of Residential Single Family (RSF-4) district West: Developed commercial within the City of Naples, with a current zoning designation of Highway Commercial (HC) District then to the south is developed commercial within Collier County jurisdiction with a current zoning designation of General Commercial (C-4) district ~` HOLIDAY LANE o� ery HARBOR LANE i W Ld d Y Cf m Tyy�� DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) �Q `�7 s T r&s 4�1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (REZONING APP PL20190001540) a�nwring, inc. DATE. sn 021 soo F ILE. 1 zexaa bwG BROOKSIDE MARINA ..aa.rti rF�s..mK.wrv.cdr.na.a..onen.o� y y r.��w.o-.. wnw.ecasimrctnaew JS B T40 19-002 SHEET. 1 Aerial Map — Greensite Engineering, Inc. RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Page 3 of 11 Revised: March 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 387 9.A.3.a GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The Future Land Use Map depicts the 4.4-acre project site as Urban, Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area. The Urban Mixed -Use District of the Future Land Use Element states, "Water -dependent and water -related land uses are permitted within the coastal region of this District. Mixed -use sites of water -dependent and water - related uses and other recreational uses may include water -related parks, marinas (public or private), yacht clubs, and related accessory and recreational uses, such as boat storage, launching facilities, fueling facilities, and restaurants. Any development that includes a water -dependent and/or water -related land use shall be encouraged to use the Planned Unit Development technique and other innovative approaches to conserve environmentally sensitive areas and assure compatibility with surrounding land uses." The project is consistent with Policy 7.1 of the FLUE, due to its connection to a 6-lane arterial road, Davis Blvd. SR84. Policies 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 of the FLUE are not applicable to the project since the property is mainly submerged. • Policy 6.1.1 of the GMP's Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) is also not applicable due to the property being mostly submerged. The trimming and alteration of the existing mangroves will be governed by the State pursuant to the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act, Sections 403.9321 through 403.9333, Florida Statutes. • CCME Policy 10.1.1 — The rezone application seeks approval for a marina and is therefore consistent with and implements this policy. • CCME Policy 10.1.5 — Marinas and all other water -dependent and water -related uses shall conform to all applicable regulations regarding development in marine wetlands. This project will not destroy wetlands. The proposed project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Element: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five-year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occurs: 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 RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Page 4 of 11 Revised: March 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 388 9.A.3.a equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " According to the Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) dated September 23, 2022, provided with this petition the proposed Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone will generate a projected total of +/-24 PM peak hour two-way trips. Currently, there are 39 existing wet slips with the requested rezone proposing an additional 73 wet slips which represent +/-16 PM peak hour two- way trips net new trips on the following roadway segments with the listed capacities according to the 2021 and 2022 AUIR. Staff notes that the requested rezone is limited to submerged land C-4 uses only, as indicated in the TIS. Roadway Link/ID Current Peak 2021 2021 2022 2022 Hour Peak AUIR AUIR AUIR AUIR Direction LOS Remaining LOS Remaining Service Capacity Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Davis Airport 2,700/East C 1,244 C 1,233 Boulevard Pulling Rd to US 41/12.0 US Davis Blvd 2,900/East C 1,158 C 942 41/East to Airport Tamiami Pulling Trail Rd/91.0 Based on the 2021 and 2022 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for this development within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject Rezone can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 0.024 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 0.002 acres (10%) of native vegetation is required to be preserved. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including Section 10.02.08.17, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establishes the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. Drainage: The proposed zoning amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Page 5 of 11 Revised: March 30, 2023 N c �L W .y 0 0 L LO 0 v 0 0 0 0 fV J a ti Packet Pg. 389 9.A.3.a Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The property consists of submerged lands; the required preserve is 0.002 acres (10% of 0.024 acres). The preservation amount will be confirmed at SDP/PPL review. No listed animal or plant species were observed on the property. While the property is located adjacent to Rock Creek, a natural waterbody, the subject property is a dredged man-made basin. Currently, the property has thirty-nine (39) existing wet slips. The applicant is proposing to add seventy-three (73) wet slips. In accordance with LDC section 5.05.02, all proposed multi -slip docking facilities with ten or more slips are required to be reviewed for consistency with the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP). The MPP has been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 1995. The MPP was established to protect manatees by limiting slip counts in sensitive marine habitats and improving manatee awareness. The marina citing criteria establishes three rankings for proposed multi -slip docking facilities: "Preferred," "Moderate," and "Protected." The rankings are determined based on an analysis of the water depth, impact on native marine habitat, and manatee use. The ranking outcome establishes the maximum slip count allowed for a proposed multi -slip docking facility. A Manatee Protection Plan (PL20180002738) evaluation for the subject property determined the property to be Preferred ranking allowing for a 311.7 slip limit. Transportation Review: The Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this development. Landscape Review: The landscape buffers labeled within the subject property boundary on the Conceptual Master Plan are consistent with the LDC. Utility Review: The project lies within the City of Naples's potable water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD). Wastewater services are not required for this project. The City of Naples Utilities Department furnished a letter of water service availability on September 7, 2022. Zoning Services Review: Based on historical imagery from County GIS Maps and County Aerial and Map Atlas, the submerged lands which are the subject of this rezone petition, along with their associated uplands, have been operated as a marina since the 1960s. Aerial photography shows three piers of covered wet slips in the western basin of the submerged lands since at least 1979. In the early 2000s, additional wet slips were installed on the southern shoreline of the submerged lands (to the east of the western basin). At that time, the total number of wet slips in the submerged lands was 137. In 2013, the covered wet slips in the western basis were disassembled and removed by a predecessor owner, but the slips along the southern shoreline remained in use. In 2018, the applicant purchased the property, intending to re -install the wet slips and associated dock facilities in the western basin. However, the RSF-4 zoning of the submerged lands does not permit marinas (the 2013 removal of the wet slips in the western basin resulted in the loss of their valid non- conforming status). Therefore, in 2019, the applicant submitted this rezone petition to effectuate the process to re -install the wet slips in the western basin and allow recreational rental boats and other vessels to moor there. The conceptual site plan submitted with the rezone petition shows a total of 112 wet slips in the submerged lands, which is fewer than the number of slips that existed RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Page 6 of 11 Revised: March 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 390 9.A.3.a prior to 2013. It should be noted that the County's Manatee Protection Plan ranks this property as a "preferred" marina site, qualifying the submerged lands and the associated uplands for a total of 311.7 wet and dry slips. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to rezone the submerged lands from RSF-4 to C-4 with permitted uses limited to the following water -dependent and water -related uses: 1. Marinas (4493 and 4499 - except canal operation, cargo salvaging, ship dismantling, lighterage, marine salvaging, marine wrecking, and steamship leasing), and all structures N and uses accessory to marinas, including, but not limited to, boat slips (wet), piers, walkways, davits, boat lifts, boat lift canopies, and boat ramps. 2. Water Transportation of Passengers (4489 — except airboats/swamp buggy rides). 3. Water Transportation Services (4499), limited to boat cleaning, boat hiring (except pleasure) a� boat livery (except pleasure), commercial boat rental, and chartering of commercial boats. 4. Amusement and Recreation services (7999), limited to recreational/pleasure boat rentals, o operation of charter or party fishing boats, canoe/kayak/rowboat rentals, houseboat rentals m (except not for liveaboard purposes on the Property), and tourist guides. 0 v The applicant has agreed to prohibit liveaboards and personal watercraft (e.g., Jet Skis, o WaveRunners, Sea-Doos, etc.) from anchoring in the submerged lands or mooring at the wet slips. c 0 REZONE FINDINGS: Cq a 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 N that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." (Zoning Division staff responses in non -bold): W 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff has determined the petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern related to surrounding properties are described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this report. The proposed uses will not change the existing land use patterns in the area. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The rezoning will not create an isolated district to adjacent and nearby districts. The intent of the proposed C-4 limited water -dependent and water -related uses. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing district boundaries are logically drawn. There are no boundary changes RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Page 7 of 11 Revised: March 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 391 9.A.3.a proposed. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of theproposed rezoning necessary. Changing conditions do not make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood Development will meet site design standards set by the LDC. 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. As noted above, Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at the 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. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed development at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at the time of the Site Development Plan (SDP) review. The operational impacts for the facility will be reviewed at the time of the Plat or Site Development Plan (SDP). The TIS submitted by the applicant indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period as noted above and not adversely impact further the surrounding roadway network. & Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. It is not anticipated that the rezoning request to change Residential Single Family-4 (RSF-4) Zoning District to a General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District will create drainage problems in the area. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed rezone from RSF-4 to C-4 would not reduce light or air to adjacent areas. Development will meet the site design standards set by the LDC. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. Property value is affected by many factors. It is driven by market conditions and is generally RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Page 8 of 11 Revised: March 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 392 9.A.3.a a subjective determination. Zoning alone is not likely to adversely affect property values. Generally, market conditions prevail. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the rezoning would be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed rezone, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The existing zoning is Residential Single Family-4 (RSF-4) which would permit single- family homes. The rezoning is necessary in order to develop the site with a marina and water -dependent and water -related uses. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff s position that the proposed rezoning to C-4 is not out of scale with the needs of the community or the County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any future development anticipated by the rezoning would require an extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during 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 RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Page 9 of 11 Revised: March 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 393 9.A.3.a Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no adverse impact on public utilities facility adequacy. I& Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. N JANUARY 6, 2022 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): L C� C The applicant conducted a NIM on January 6, 2022, at the Naples Bay Resort and Marina in the Point conference room, located at 1500 Fifth Avenue South in Naples. 18 people attended the NIM Y and 14 via Zoom. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:30 p.m. The o applicant's agent explained the request for the proposed Rezone. Clay Brooker, the agent, conducted m a PowerPoint presentation and gave a detailed explanation of the project. After the presentation, the o meeting was opened to questions and answers that were discussed such as:LO • Seawall protruding into the channel on the west side o • Boats crating wakes of water CD • Brookside allegedly operating illegally N • Submerged lands ownership a • Property appraiser codes • Number of boat slips, boat sizes, and boat ramps • Environmental concerns • Boat traffic study • Stormwater issues • Proposed boat traffic that Freedom Boat Club will generate • Noise pollution • EPA representation • Marine engineering firm • Any music or restaurants proposed It should be noted that during the NIM it was discovered that the fourteen people attending via Zoom could not hear the meeting. As such it was announced that a second NIM was to be scheduled at a future date. Clay Brooker answered all questions and concerns. No commitments were discussed at this NIM meeting. A copy of the NIM materials is included in Attachment C. JULY 19, 2022 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on July 19, 2022, at the Collier County Growth Management Building, Room 609/610 located at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive in Naples. 10 people attended the NIM and 19 via Zoom. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 7:25 p.m. The applicant's agent explained the request for the proposed Rezone. Clay Brooker, the agent, conducted a PowerPoint presentation and gave a detailed explanation of the project. After the presentation, the meeting was opened to questions and answers that were discussed such as: RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Page 10 of 11 Revised: March 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 394 9.A.3.a • Parking for the marina after the property of the upland is conveyed • Environmental impact studies • Subsequent owners being bounded by the conditions of the ordinance • Operating hours of the marina • Total number of wet slips • Number of wet slips that were commercial versus residential • Number of charter boats and their sizes • Pre-existing nonconformities • Number of boats that are permitted on the 39 existing wet slips • Buffer zones or setbacks requirements are given the proximity of the uplands to neighboring properties (i.e., narrow canal) • Zoning of property to commercial rather than residential • Who are the owners of Naples Marina Holdings? Who will own the uplands? • Impact study • Number of boats that occupy each pod • Of the 112 wet slips, how many are exclusively for Freedom Boat Club Clay Brooker answered all questions and concerns. One commitment was made that a conceptual site plan would show the 112 wet slips that were approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. A copy of the NIM materials is included in Attachment C. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EACI RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report for content and legality on March 29, 2023. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Division staff recommends the CCPC forward petition RZ-PL20190001540 — Brookside Marina to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) Application/Backup materials RZ-PL20190001540; Brookside Marina Page 11 of 11 Revised: March 30, 2023 N c W �a 0 0 LO 0 v 0 0 0 0 N J a N Packet Pg. 395 9.A.3.b ORDINANCE NO.2023- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 4 (RSF-4) ZONING DISTRICT TO A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTIRCT (C-4) ZONING DISTRICT LIMITED TO A MARINA USE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON DAVIS BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 2/10 OF ONE MILE EAST OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 4.4t ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20190001540] WHEREAS, Clay C. Brooker, Esq. of Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. representing Naples Marina Holdings, 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 more particularly described in Exhibit A, located in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Residential Single Family 4 (RSF-4) Zoning District to a General Commercial District (C-4) Zoning District for a 4.4+/- acre project to be known as Brookside Marina, subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit B. Exhibits A through D are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 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. [20-CPS-02019/1781499/1]114 Brookside Marina RZ / PL20190001540 3/31/23 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 396 9.A.3.b SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko 'y Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Legal Description Conditions of Approval Location Map Conceptual Plan [20-CPS-02019/1781499/ 1 ] 114 Brookside Marina RZ / PL20190001540 3/31/23 2 of 2 2023. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Un Rick LoCastro, Chairman Packet Pg. 397 9.A.3.b COA SAL Exhibit A CECI Group Services ENGINEERING Coastal and Marine Engineering CONSULTANTS Environmental and Geological Services Land and Marine Survey and Mapping INC. Website: www.coastalenrgineering.com RSF-4 PARCEL BROOKSIDE MARINA LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW IA) OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, RUN N89"42'44" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 662.10 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF MARNICK CORNER, A SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGE 81 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N00019'57"W 242.84 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THOSE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2, PAGE 454 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE N00019'57"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 427.26 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (SW '/4) OF SAID SECTION 2 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF BROOKSIDE SUBDIVISION UNIT NO. 3 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 88 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N89035'48"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 892.16 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE TWENTY (20) FEET WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BROOKSIDE DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S00°14'14"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 153.66 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THOSE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4903, PAGE 2029 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S89024'05"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 688.28 FEET; THENCE S00026'09"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 270.96 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2, PAGE 454; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LANDS S89030'12"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBES APPROXIMATELY 193,061 SQUARE FEET OR 4.43 ACRES OF LAND. BEARINGS RELATIVE TO NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, FLORIDA EAST ZONE. '—S42.1 Bonita (:ru„ings BM_ Bonita Spnnts, I L 34135 12 i i North Range .A%fc-, Suw, F. Denham SEtrin s, LA ' 26 Phone f2 9) 64_1-2324 • Fax (Y I)l hd;_', 143 Phony; P.-mail: i"iti 2 & 4j m1 SERVING COASTAL COMMUNITIES SINCE 1977 Packet Pg. 398 ((ZM) euiaew 8pis)I00a8 - 0940006LOZ-ld : VMIZ) eoueulpap posodoad - V 1u0wy3e14v :;uawyoe;;d «aleiYJb. Mi.v3tl .n 1YJ13Na VNIwYFrot OL ww'YPr.O.M #rN3 9SIK VOWOV'BDNItlda VllNOa � [rlltrol.Citll:wf�--w atlVA3ltpa 4DI.a80tl�V11NDa lens 3Si aos ! YOINOI! rttiiMelZl3Nt»Sf ....ap.p nn3�r a 'a A1NtID3 N31110'19V3SL30NYtl'N1f1030adINSNAgl'CN011*32 ONI� NI9NIAl20NYI10 SNOI1dR10530 d0 HD13NS S1NVirSINO: — " c:q c . oNaavNONVAanwn9NlwrtawaNv+ ONRi33 )B Y e3antlac mlcomao aw tVlN3NNOtl1AN! 011 SONI010N VNINYW S31dVN oN1aa3N1oN3 aN�wN aw ticvoa IVisvoo B le 1.9 y p C 10 p,leg ¢e 1111g BROOKSIDE DRIVE a ���' 60' RIGHT OF WAY 1 Z I 1 I O �$� �� ,ssssl a.bltbl.00s a ollp Q$ Z v P =� O U) w styp u > ~a� rn � w W � J ❑cn❑ s')4 as w0 Q w = o a U Z g W Q 6v $ U W U) `_ U) a o Q a ry ¢ lL o ep 9 co°( �� a Z w Hai 0 y� `f c R O f N ' inz7 D coo o04 z ,00'OLt4 9.1L.90.00S V5 Dili g `" o w 6 y 9j �� Z sr o? aTo T 9 Q� c >� aw~y>Q N ; w (K,7 O > rya € 8a�Q° ��, ¢O 7tlj W w= �k N V a W � 0 a oD Z Y .N- ;� m m U)cb co Lo o ❑ 96'OLZ .9Z OON nil I, 96' LZ MN t9Z.0 f d c t99'LOZ M.ZSIZ1.00N g? N O ZE" ¢4 W U y s 3 m 3 LL a 'i ° � z s i o �o¢ p 9Z'M? M.19.6L.00N Z a V9'ZVZ M.L9.6L.00N WZ«y R O C J t ..5 _. W O' U O I+� K� s NI % Z 3 Zuo coI W �3 4¢o Ui� VQQ� coLLI a O NI LLufQw — CL LLY F—� Or'k mi Zo ~� Z1 0., O Na a I �►V .113_Y_ 11:3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The permitted uses are limited to the following water -dependent and water -related uses: 1. Marinas (4493 and 4499 — except canal operation, cargo salvaging, ship dismantling, lighterage, marine salvaging, marine wrecking, and steamship leasing), and all structures and uses accessory to marinas, including, but not limited to, boat slips (wet), piers, walkways, davits, boat lifts, boat lift canopies, and boat ramps. 2. Water Transportation of Passengers (4489 — except airboats/swamp buggy rides). 3. Water Transportation Services (4499), limited to boat cleaning, boat hiring (except pleasure), boat livery (except pleasure), commercial boat rental, and chartering of commercial boats. 4. Amusement and Recreation Services (7999), limited to recreational/pleasure boat rentals, operation of charter or party fishing boats, canoe/kayak/rowboat rentals, houseboat rentals (except not for liveaboard purposes on the Property), and tourist guides. B. Liveaboards and personal watercraft would be prohibited from anchoring or mooring in the Property C. The project will be constructed in accordance with the "Conceptual Site Plan for Rezoning App RZ-PL20190001540 Brookside Marina, revised 1/6/2023," prepared by Greensite Engineering, Inc. and attached as Exhibit D. However, the site plan is conceptual in nature and is subject to modification due to agency permitting. [20-CPS-02019/1751093/1179 3-7-23 N c a� .y 0 0 L m 0 LO 0 0 0 rn 0 N J IL rn ti v N Packet Pg. 400 M Q a; ((ZM) eui.leW apisMoo.18 - 0tI56000MUld : VMIZ) eoueuipio posodo.ld - V luawLl3elly :;uauayoe;;v W Q O D Y 0 H(] 1210Jawwoo C 9 U-cf) 0W J a uz CL CU .E O N Q c O co U O J 0 d- 0 0 0 T— O N J L N E I Z c 0 a� 0 ;1414x3 M Q ((ZM) euiaew apis)Ioo. S - OVSLOOMOZ-1d : b6LVZ) eoueuipap posodoad - d;uauayoe;;V :IUOWLjoe}}br � ar I �p �gg asa� ygyg B� S 6 f 9�•$� ° Y '� �k 2 a Sg g 0 .9S'E9l a.".Yt .09$ �) C Z = 3a ei ' ! LU F—J Z w EL LU 0 UJ .L'94 � r! 0 0 i $w aroeaa Gvoe :asn GNaaano a w � Y QXW Vn1YL'J 4� :ONINOZ � l� I AO'0[Y a",9n w0 S -l\ O LC m N 1 L° 'pia is b i°CD l ----------------- 3 ; O t o _ ° w > a w; o Z ohmaj O -U6. .ZB OGZ 3.El.LI..00S - 22 2 1 LLI wo N l l \ IN M.61.11AWN O i 1 l 5 I m a c a s gg wZ g Q wwz I za y a w < w o o g a— qq - w Y"�........................... l3GOH 3Sn GN3aan� �§ OIO'fMW19t� :ONWOZ R Z Q L aa�inev3au.a ® o d® 0 Q 1!q!, xl N Cl a r CD u m a 9.A.3.c Co*p,r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STANDARD REZONE APPLICATION LDC Section 10.02.08 Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code PROJECT NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED Name of Property Owner(s): APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Naples Marina Holdings, LLC Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address. 801 E. Venice Ave. city: Telephone: E-Mail Address: Cell: Name of Agent: Clay C. Brooker, Esq. Firm: Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. Venice State: Florida ZIP: 34285 Address: 821 Fifth Avenue South city Telephone: (239) 261-9300 Cell: E-Mail Address: ccbrooker@napieslaw.com Fax: Naples State: Florida ZIP. 34102 PROPERTY INFORMATION Fax: (239) 261-9782 Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application, if space is inadequate, attach on separate page: • 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: o� LO 25E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: 00386200003, 00386120002, 00386080003 09/28/2017 Page 1 of 8 Packet Pg. 403 9.A.3.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliereov.net Co er County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Size of Property: ft. x ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres: 4.4 Address/ General Location of Subject Property: 2015 Davis Boulevard ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N RSF-4 Single-family residential S C-4-GTMUD-MXD Marina/Commercial E RSF-4 C-4-GTMUD-MXD Single-family residential Hotel W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page) Section/Township/Range: 02/ 50S ! 25E Plat Book: Page # Property I.D. Number: 00386280007, 00386160004 Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: See Exhibit A REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: RSF-4 Zoning district(s) to the C-4 zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Submerged lands (wet slips) Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the subject property: Submerged lands (wet slips) Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. 09/28/217 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 404 CAT County 9.A.3.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliereov.net ASSOCIATIONS 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Requirement: 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: Naples Brookside Homeowners Association, Inc. Mailing Address: 1980 Harbor Lane City: Naples State: Florida Zip: 34104 Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP- City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.02.08, staff's 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, please provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map and elements of the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of 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 for the proposed change. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) when necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. 09/28/217 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 405 9.A.3.c .56 er GOurity COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX- (239) 252-6358 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 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. 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]. 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. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? No. 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 [—M] No if so please provide copies. 09/28/217 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 406 9.A.3.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Name of Applicant(s): Address: Telephone: E-Mail Address: CAT County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR STANDARD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION City: State: ZIP: Cell: Fax: Address of Subject Property (If available): City: State: ZIP: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range: _/� Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: Metes & Bounds Description: TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): e. Septic System I TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED I 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: 09/28/217 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 407 9.A.3.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net CAT County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. 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 proiect shall be provided. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 H. 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 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. N W R a� .N 0 0 ML W 0 LO r CD CD 0 N J d ti v 09/28/217 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 408 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Coder COUnty 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Standard Rezone Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code 9.A.3.c The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Pre -Application meeting notes 1 Project Narrative 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Utility Provisions Statement with sketches 1 Signed and Sealed Survey 1 Conceptual Site Plan 1 �/ Architectural Rendering ❑ List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 1 �/ Warranty Deeds i Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 ❑✓ Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous 1 Elsurveys 21 Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. ❑ ❑ Historical Survey or waiver request 1F7 Traffic Impact Statement, with applicable fees 1 �/ School Impact Analysis Application — residential projects only 1 �/ Electronic copy of all documents and plans 1 �/ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement 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." N c� c m .N 0 0 L m 0 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a CD ti Iq N 09/28/217 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 409 9.A.3.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Collier County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following additional reviewers: Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director ❑ Historical Review Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams and David Berra ✓0 Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay ❑ School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Other: Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS L- Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre -application meeting will be required) C Rezone Petition (regular): $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) o Additional Fee for 5"' and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee ❑ Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $750.00 ❑ Listed/Protected Species Survey: $1,000.00 ❑ Estimated Legal Advertising: o CCPC- $1,125.00 o BCC- $500.00 C Transportation Fee: o Methodology Review: $500.00 (Additional fees to be determined at Methodology meeting) School Concurrency Review: If required, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners, The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Own Signature Date Clay C. Brooker Applicant/Owner Name (please print) N W R c a� �a Y 0 0 m 0 Iq L0 r 0 0 0 r 0 N J d 0 ti v N 09/28/217 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 410 EXHIBIT A COASTAL CECI Group Services ENGINEERING Coastal and Marine Engineering _ CONSULTANTS Environmental and Geological Services _ Land and Marine Survey and Mapping C INC. Website: vwwv.coastalengineering.com A CECI GROUP COMPANY C-4-GTMUD-MXD PARCEL N BROOKSIDE MARINA w CU LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW'/) OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: o ML M COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, RUN N89044'42" o E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 662.10 FEET TO LO AN INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF o MARNICK CORNER, A SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGE 81 OFCD THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; N THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N00018'06"W 242.84 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER a OF THOSE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2, PAGE 454 OF SAID PUBLIC .RECORDS; ti THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LANDS N89030'14"E FOR A DISTANCE OF N 150.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. w THENCE CONTINUE N89030'14"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.93 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2, PAGE 454; THENCE N00017'13"W FORA DISTANCE OF 270.92 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THOSE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4903, PAGE 2029 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N89024'05"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 271.61 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LANDS S00006'17"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 470.00 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S88058'26"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.07 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE FIFTY (50) FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2, PAGE 454; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N00017'13"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 201.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBES APPROXIMATELY 137,626 SQUARE FEET OR 3.16 ACRES OF LAND. BEARINGS RELATIVE TO NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, FLORIDA EAST ZONE. 28421 Bonita Crossings Blvd., Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Phone (239) 643-2324 • Fax (239) 643-1143 1211 North Range Ave., Suite E, Denham Springs, LA 70726 Phone (225) 523-7403 E-mail: infoin cecifl.com SERVING COASTAL COMMUNITIES SINCE 1977 Packet Pg. 411 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) I. Introduction The subject property is comprised of ±4.4 acres of primarily submerged lands (the "Property"), located "behind" (or immediately to the north of) the location of the former Brookside Marina and West Marine retail store on Davis Boulevard (the "Contiguous Uplands"). The applicant, Naples Marina Holdings, LLC, purchased the Property (along with the Contiguous Uplands) in 2018 and wishes to re -install wet slips and associated dock facilities in the Property that had existed for decades but were removed by a predecessor owner. The Property, which is owned in fee simple by the applicant, is currently zoned RSF-4. The applicant proposes to rezone the Property to C-4, although the permitted uses in this particular C-4 zoning district would be limited to water -dependent and water -related uses (given the submerged nature of the Property). II. History of Property According to historical aerial photographs, permit history, and information contained on the Collier County Property Appraiser's website, the Property and the Contiguous Uplands have been utilized together as a marina for decades. The Contiguous Uplands were developed in the 1960s with the buildings that remain on -site today. By 1979, numerous covered wet slips had been installed within the western basin of the Property. See the 1979 aerial photograph attached hereto as Exhibit A. In the early 2000s, the marina was expanded with additional wet slips on the Property's southern shoreline (to the east of the western basin). According to permit materials, the marina at that time consisted of 234 slips, that is, 137 wet slips within the Property and 97 dry slips on the Contiguous Uplands. In or around 2013, the covered wet slips within the western basin of the Property were removed by a predecessor owner, and the Property was subsequently dredged in 2016-17 In 2018, Collier County formally determined that the site holds a "preferred" ranking under the County's Manatee Protection Plan and qualifies for a total of 311.7 slips (wet and dry). Currently, the Property contains 39 wet slips. Through this rezone, the applicant's primary goal is to re -install wet slips within the western basin. N c a� .N 0 0 L m 0 LO 0 0 0 r 0 N J d ti v N Page 1 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 412 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) III. Proposed Rezone The primary, immediate goals of the applicant are to re -install wet slips in the western basin of the Property and allow recreational rental boats (e.g., Freedom Boat Club) and other vessels to moor within the Property. After meetings with County staff, it was suggested that the most efficient way to accomplish these goals is to rezone the Property from RSF-4 to C-4, with permitted uses being limited to the following water -dependent and water -related uses: Marinas (4493 and 4499 - except canal operation, cargo salvaging, ship dismantling, lighterage, marine salvaging, marine wrecking, and steamship leasing), and all structures and uses accessory to marinas, including, but not limited to, boat slips (wet), piers, walkways, davits, boat lifts, boat lift canopies, and boat ramps. 2. Water Transportation of Passengers (4489 —except airboats/swamp buggy rides). 3. Water Transportation Services (4499), limited to boat cleaning, boat hiring (except pleasure), boat livery (except pleasure), commercial boat rental, and chartering of commercial boats. 4. Amusement and Recreation Services (7999), limited to recreational/pleasure boat rentals, operation of charter or party fishing boats, canoe/kayak/rowboat rentals, houseboat rentals (except not for liveaboard purposes on the Property), and tourist guides. Liveaboards and personal watercraft would be prohibited from anchoring or mooring in the Property. IV. GMP Consistency A. Future Land Use Element According to the Future Land Use Map, the property carries a land use designation of Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. This designation accommodates water -dependent and water -related uses, as well as a variety of commercial uses. Marinas and related uses such as boat storage and launching facilities are expressly permitted. The proposed rezone is consistent with these provisions. Finally, the property falls within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Mobile homes are not proposed for this rezone (nor could they due to the submerged nature of the Property). Accordingly, the N R c a� .N 0 0 L m 0 LO O O O r O N J d ti v N proposed rezone is consistent with the Coastal High Hazard Area. See page 120 of the FLUE. Page 2 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 413 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (P L20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) N Consistency with other applicable FLUE provisions: c • 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 Y connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the °o Land Development Code. m 0 Iq kespor,se: The Property's ingress and egress is via the Contiguous Uplands, LO which connect to Davis Boulevard, a 6-lane arterial road. Accordingly, the o application is consistent with this policy. c N J d • 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. N kesponse: 1 ne vroper y is primarily submerged lands. Accordingly, this policy is inapplicable. Policy 7.3 -- All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. kesponse: The Property is prrrr,umy submerged lands. Accordingly, this policy is inapplicable. • 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. Response: The Property is primarily submerged lands, and this application does not pertain to residential development. Accordingly, this policy is inapplicable. Page 3 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 414 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) B. Conservation and Coastal Management Element Consistency with applicable CCME provisions: • Policv 6.1.1— For the County's Urban Designated Area...,native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria.... Commercial development, less than 5 acres, in the Coastal High Hazard Area: 10% Response: The Property is primarily submerged lands. The only existing native vegetation on -site is on isolated, small area of mangrove trees rooted in wetlands at the southeast corner of the property. No site plan is required by the County for this rezone application, so no preserve area has been identified. However, if the County determines that a native vegetation preserve area is required under these circumstances, 10 percent of these mangrove wetlands will be so designated, thereby complying with this policy. in this regard, please note that mangrove trimming and alteration is exempt from the County's native vegetation preservation requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.05.02.E. Accordingly, trimming and alteration of the existing mangroves will be governed by the State pursuant to the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act, Sections 403.9321 through 403.9333, Florida Statutes. Policv 7.2.1-- The County shall apply the marina siting criteria contained in the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan (NR-SP-93-01), May 1995 in order to direct increased boat traffic away from sensitive manatee habitats. Response: T ne County nas oeterminea tnar the vroperry ranks as a "preferred" marina site under the County's Manatee Protection Plan, thereby entitling the Property and the Contiguous Uplands to 311 wet and dry slips. See attached letter, dated November 2, 2018, from the County"s Environmental Planning Section, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Thus, the Property (together with the Contiguous Uplands) will not contain more than a total of 311 wet and dry slips, thereby complying with this policy. N c a� .N 0 0 ML W 0 LO 0 0 0 r 0 N J a ti v N Page 4 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 415 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) • Policy 10.1.1-- Priorities for water -dependent and water -related uses shall be: a. Public recreational facilities over private recreational facilities; b. Public Boat Ramps; c. Marinas 1. Commercial (public) marinas over private marinas; 2. Dry storage over wet storage; d. Commercial fishing facilities; e. Other non-polluting water -dependent industries or utilities; f. Marine supply/repair facilities; g. Residential development. response: This rezone application seeks approval for a marina and is therefore consistent with, and implements, this policy. • Policy 10.1.5 -- Marinas and all other water -dependent and water -related uses shall conform to all applicable regulations regarding development in marine wetlands. Marinas and water-dependent/water-related uses that propose to destroy wetlands shall provide for general public use. response: I his application does not propose the destruction of wetianas. V. LDC Evaluation Criteria LDC section 10.02.08.F requires consideration of the proposed zoning change in relation to the following criteria: 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. Response: As detailed hereinabove, the proposed change is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Growth Management Plan. Page 5 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 416 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) 2. The existing land use pattern. Response: While a residential neighborhood exists to the north and east, the existing land uses to the southeast, south and west of the Property are commercial. Moreover, the Property (along with the Contiguous Uplands) has been utilized as a marina since the 1970s (at the latest). Thus, rezoning the Property to a commercial zoning district is consistent with the existing land use pattern in the area. Also, the Property is primarily submerged lands, so water - dependent and water -related uses are the only reasonable and feasible uses to which the Property con he nut, 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Response: While a residential neighborhood exists to the north and east, the existing zoning districts to the southeast, south and west of the Property are commercial. Thus, rezoning the Property to a commercial zoning district will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Also, the Property is primarily submerged lands, so water -dependent and water -related uses are the only reasonable and feasible uses to which the Property can be put. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Resoonse: I he Property's existing residentim zoning is illogical in that the Property (along with the Contiguous Uplands) has been utilized as a marina since the 1970s (at the latest). Wet slips will be re -introduced to the western basin of the Property in the some way those submerged lands were used for more than three decades. N c a� .N 0 0 ML W 0 LO 0 0 0 0 N J a ti v N 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Q Response: The Property's existing residential zoning is illogical in that the Property (along with the Contiguous Uplands) has been utilized as a marina since Page 6 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 417 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) A L the 1970s (at the latest). Wet slips will be re -introduced to the western basin of the Property in the some way those submerged lands were used for more than three decades. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Response: While a residential neighborhood exists to the north and east, the Property (along with the Contiguous Uplands) has been utilized as a marina since the 1970s (at the latest). Wet slips will be re -introduced to the western basin of the Property in the some way those submerged lands were used for more than three decades. Therefore, the proposed rezone to allow for water -dependent and water -related uses on the Property will not adversely influence living conditions in the surrounding areas. 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. Reipuitse: Please see the Traffic Impact Statement submitted with this application, which concludes that the proposed rezone will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding road network and will not create any off -site transportation deficiencies that need to be mitigated. The proposed rezone will allow the Property to be used precisely as it has been used since the 1970s (at the latest). Wet slips will be re -introduced to the western basin of the Property in the same way those submerged lands were used for more than three decades. Thus, the proposed change will not create incompatible traffic or increase traffic congestion. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Response: The Property is primarily submerged lands. This criterion is inapplicable. N c �L .N 0 0 m 0 LO 0 0 0 r 0 N J a ti N Page 7 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 418 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Response: The Property is primarily submerged lands. No vertical construction in the form of buildings is proposed. Therefore, the proposed rezone will have no impact on light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Response: The proposed rezone will allow the Property to be used precisely as it has been used since the 1970s (at the latest). Wet slips will be re -introduced to the western basin of the Property in the same way those submerged lands were used for more than three decades. Thus, the proposed change will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Response: The proposed rezone will allow the Property to be used precisely as it has been used since the 1970s (at the latest). Wet slips will be re -introduced to the western basin of the Property in the same way those submerged lands were used for more than three decades. Thus, the proposed change will have no impact on development or improvement of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Response: No special privilege will be granted to the applicant if the proposed rezone is approved. Page 8 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 419 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Response: The Property's existing residential zoning is illogical and prevents the Property from being used as a marina, the only reasonable and feasible use for the Property. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Response: Wet slips and marina facilities are in high demand throughout the County. Moreover, the proposed rezone will allow the Property to be used precisely as it has been used since the 1970s (at the latest). Wet slips will be re- introduced to the western basin of the Property in the same way those submerged lands were used far more than three decades. Accordingly, the proposed change is not out of scale. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Response: Wet slips and marina facilities are in high demand throughout the County. Moreover, the Property is primarily submerged lands, so water - dependent and water -related uses are the only reasonable and feasible uses to which the Property can be put. 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. Response: The proposed rezone will allow the Property to be used precisely as it has been used since the 1970s (at the latest). Wet slips will be re -introduced to the western basin of the Property in the some way those submerged lands were used for more than three decades. Page 9 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 420 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Narrative Statement, GMP Consistency, and LDC Evaluation Criteria (10-12-22) 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. Response: The proposed rezone will allow the Property to be used precisely as it has been used since the 1970s (at the latest). Wet slips will be re -introduced to the western basin of the Property in the same way those submerged lands were used for more than three decades. Accordingly, the proposed change will have no impact on the availability of adequate public facilities and services. 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. Response: TBD. Page 10 of 10 4854-0826-1385, v. 2 Packet Pg. 421 9.A.3.c EXHIBIT A Packet Pg. 422 9.A.3.c COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department Development Review Division Environmental Planning Section RE November 02, 2018 R c •L Johanna Shifflette M a 0 1938 Hill Avenue Fort Myers, FL 33901 :° rn 0 0 L RE; Brookside Marina (PL20180002738) m Collier County Environmental Planning section has reviewed your request for compliance with the Iq Collier County Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) as it pertains to the Brookside Marina Project located at c 2025 Davis Blvd Naples, FL. Project Summary: Per the proposed site plan submitted, the applicant, is proposing to construct 73 new r J wetslips (6 finger piers, 3 floating docks and an aluminum ramp), a Consistency Review: Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5,05.02.B, states that ti developments will be reviewed for consistency with the MPP and the following determinations were N made. , Vegetation Impact; An analysis of shoreline mangrove vegetation was provided by Hans Wilson, and Associates. Based upon the existing and proposed dock site plan, no impacts of the shoreline vegetation are proposed. As a result of the dredging, no seagrasses are present within the marina basin, Overall this gives a "No Marine Impact' result to Marine Habitat under the Marina Siting Criteria of the MPP (pg 79). For shoreline vegetation such as mangt•oves, no impact is defined as no greater than 5% of the native marine habitat is disturbed. For sea grasses, no impact means that no more than 100 square feet of sea grasses can be impacted, Depth: The proposal indicated there will be adequate water depth in the immediate vicinity of the project to the marked navigation channel. Current depth of the area is -5 ft MLW. The Brookside Marina basin has been dredged though the issuance of FDEP permit no. 11-0173190-001 to conduct maintenance dredging of marina basin to bring mooring depths to -5 ft. MWL. The MPP states adequate water depths to be greater than 4 ft. MLW (pg 72 of the MPP). A dredging permit has been obtained, which includes all of the marina basin. The dredging was completed on November 24, 2017. An as built survey was conducted by Turrell, Hall & Associates on November 30, 2017 verifying -5 Feet MLW had been reached within the marina basin. Manatee Deaths: Between January 1974 and November 2018, 138 manatees have died associated with watercraft -related injuries in Collier County waters. Eighteen (18) manatees have died within a five -mile radius of the project location from watercraft -related causes. This number represents approximately 9% of all watercraft -related deaths in the county. Therefore, manatee use is not considered to be high. Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Ft. 34104 • 239-252-2400 EXHTBTT Packet Pg. 423 9.A.3.c In summary, the above information results in No Marine impact, water depth at -5 feet MWL, and Not High manatee use, resulting in a Preferred ranking under the MPP. Linder Preferred Ranking, new boat slip density would be allowed at 18 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. The application states there is 1,732 feet of shoreline, which would equate to 311.7 slips allowed. There are 39 existing wet slips and 25 dry slips. The applicant is proposing 73 new slips for a total of 137 slips, which is under the 311.7 limit (1,732 linear fi /100 x I8 slips). Therefore, it appears the project proposal is consistent with the MPP. However, during final construction plan (Site Development Plan) review, these findings may change based on the information submitted at that tirne. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252-2548. Sincerely; Craig Brown Senior Environmental Specialist, Environmental Plan Review Development Review Division. Zoning Olvision • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive . Naples, FL 34104 . 239-252-2400 N W CO c a� .N 0 0 ML W 0 LO 0 0 0 0 N J d ti N Packet Pg. 424 INSTR 5596633 OR 5540 PG 3726 E-RECORDED 8/7/2018 1:57 PM PAGES 9 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $41,300.00 REC $78.00 CONS $5,900,000.00 9.A.3.c THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY, AND AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO: 341 Venice Ave. W. Venice, FL 34285 Parcel Identification (Folio) Numbers: PID# 00386280007; PID# 00386160004; PID# 00386200003; PID# 00386160004; PID# 00386120002; and PID# 00386080003. (Space Above this Line for Recording Data) THIS SPECIAL WAR 2018, by Pilgrim REO, LLC, a Capital Crossing Servicing C Boston, MA 02110 ("Gran o Florida limited liability co par ("Grantee"). (Wherever sedi this instrument and the h rs, and assigns of corporation . 1 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED 0) ``. I,, made as of the 6th day of August, rite�abr� any, whose mailing address is c/o Attention: Jo 'os, 100 Summer St, Suite 1150, )r the benefit o Na es Marina Holdings, LLC, a i iI n -"'a e s is 99 La na Drive, Venice, FL 34285 's ` " i ran ee" include all the patties to �, t s d r o in 'viduals, and the successors vESS TH ,a >I That Grantor, for an sideration of the su d ollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration to i aid by Grante „eeeipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, has gran band sold, and does hereby grant, bargain, convey, and sell, unto Grantee accessors and assigns, all that certain land lying, situated and being in Collier County, Florida, more particularly described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the "Land"), and all rights, privileges, tenements, hereditaments, easements and appurtenances belonging or in anywise appertaining to the Land; TOGETHER WITH all of Grantor's right, title and interest, if any, in and to all buildings, structures and other improvements located on the Land, and any and all fixtures attached to or incorporated within such buildings, structures and other improvements, if any; and TOGETHER WITH all of Grantor's right, title and interest, if any, in and to any and all strips and gores of land located on or adjacent to the Land, and in and to the streets, venues, roads, ways, alleys, public or private, waterways, and canals, open and proposed, in front of or adjoining all or any part of the Land and serving the Land, and all rights of Grantor (if any, and only to the extent assignable) to the development of the Land granted by any governmental authority. N c� c �L M m .y 0 0 m 0 Iq LO 0 0 0 M r 0 N J a rn r` v All of the property and property rights described above shall be referred to herein as the "Property". -1- 47560690v.5 Packet Pg. 425 OR 5540 PG 3727 9.A.3.c TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property, and all the estate, right, title, interest, lien, and equity whatsoever of Grantor with respect to same, either in law or in equity, to the proper use and benefit of Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns, forever, in fee simple. N This conveyance is subject to the matters listed on Exhibit `B", attached hereto and c incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the "Permitted Exceptions"); provided, M however, that the reference to the Permitted Exceptions shall not be deemed to reimpose any of same. :a Subject to the Permitted Exceptions, the Grantor covenants with Grantee that Grantor is °o lawfully seized of the Property in fee simple; that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to m` sell and convey the Property; that Grantor fully warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by and through Grantor, and against no others. LO 0 [Signatures aeaat .the]ollowing page.] 0 0 a) )T o N -2- 47560690v.5 Packet Pg. 426 OR 5540 PG 3728 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Special Warranty Deed has been executed by Grantor to be effective as of August 6, 2018. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of- *N�o Print Name: WIKWU A Print NaMe: A41,1,w% I GRANTOR: Pilgrim REO LLC, a Delaware.1111 ited liability company By: Name: Title: Mee PfesideaA -R C tqhFz-Pag,a,to Special Warra N cv 0 0 LO Q CD CD M TMM CD N Cn P- q1 54- -3- 47560690v.5 I Packet Pg. 427 OR 5540 PG 3729 9.A.3.c STATE OF _ COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 2018, by , as of ,a He/She is personally known to the undersigned or produced identification. on behalf of the entity. as Print Name: Notary Public, State and County aforesaid. My commission expires: Commission No.: {SEAL) — 7 -- 47560690v.5 Packet Pg. 428 OR 5540 PG 3730 9.A.3.c CALIFORNIA ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate'verifies only the identity of the individual who signed (fie document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF San Francisco On July 24, 2018 before me, Public, Date d Evalynne Chan (here insert name and title of the officer) ota>y personally appeare V3 . who proved to me on the basis �f �,�acts e a e porson(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within ins'run er t aryl a k o e e tat he/she/they executed the same, in his/her/their authorized ��, a tl at his.�r e) zature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity V6° \,behalf of which th ersott(s) j , executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF Y under the lawth to of California that the foregoing paragraph is true an;.... WITNESS my hand and official seal: " fry., LVALYNNE CHAN / NotaryPublic- California San Francisco County r Commission 4 2179603 ' x My Comm. Expires Feb 10, 2021 Signature:.v__ _ y __ (Seal) OPTIONAL. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Special Warranty Deed Number of Pages: Document Date: Other: N c� �L m .N 0 0 m 0 0 O 0 Os 0 N J a CD ti Iq Packet Pg. 429 OR 5540 PG 3731 9.A.3.c EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description PARCEL[ Commencing at the southwest corner of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County Florida; thence along the south line of said Section 2, easterly 862.10 feet; thence parallel with the west line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 2, northerly 41.51 feet to the north right-of-way line of Davis Boulevard (SR-858) as established by deed recorded in Deed Book 11, Page 59, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, for a PLACE OF BEGINNING of this description. Thence continuing parallel with the west line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 2, 9gi1hei4y-200.00 feet; thence continuing northerly deflecting 0° 39' 20" to the right, 2 .t el with the north right-of-way line of said Davis Boulevard, easterly 30' e i fit, 195.45 feet; thence southerly, deflecting 90' 17' 30" to the 1 I 0.00 feet to the nor i t f-way line of said Davis Boulevard; thence along s 'd no i- ht-off-way line, wester 20 00 feet to the Place of Beginning. rt BEING a part of the sou iwe t uarter o tbe`'s i hwest uarter of S tion 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier oun V( PARCELI] 1 Commencing at the soutl a orner of Section 2, T sh' 5 h, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, thence al south line of said S" rly 862.10 feet; thence parallel with the west line of the sou carter of the southwes u of the southwest quarter said Section 2, northerly 41.51 feet I right -of- i avis Boulevard (SR-858) as established by deed recorded in D ` " 1 - lic Records of Collier County, Florida; thence along said north right-0— - erly 200.00 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING of this description. Thence northerly deflecting 89' 42' 30" to the left 470.00 feet; thence easterly deflecting 89' 42' 30" to the right, 70.00 feet, thence southerly deflecting 90' 17' 30" to the right, 470.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of said Davis Boulevard; thence along said north right-of-way line, westerly 70.00 feet to the Place of Beginning, Being a part of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. PARCEL III All that part of the Southeast'/4 of the southwest''/4 of the Southwest '/a of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 2, thence along the South line of said Section 2, North 89' 38' 05" East 662.10 feet to the west line of the east %z of the southwest'/4 of the southwest'/4 of Section 2; thence along said West line of the East %2 of the southwest'/4 of the southwest'/4 of Section 2, North 00' 17' 20" West 40.00 feet to the Southwest corner of those lands described in O.R. 2, Page 454, Public Records of Collier County, Florida: thence continue along said West line of the East''/z of the southwest'/4 of the southwest'/4 of Section 2, North 000 Exhibit A to Special Warranty Deed N c� c •L C� L m .y 0 0 m 0 Iq LO 0 0 0 rn T N J a rn r• v 47560690v.5 Packet Pg. 430 OR 5540 PG 3732 9.A.3.c 17' 20" West for 202.40 feet to the Northwest corner of those lands as described in said O.R. 2, N Page 454 and the point of beginning of the parcel herein described: c� Thence continue along said West line of the East''/z of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest 'A of Section 2, North 00° 17' 20" West 267.60 feet to the North line of those lands described in O.R. M 118, Page 361, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and the southwest corner of those lands described in O.R. 236, Page 681, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence continue along said West line of the east %2 of the southwest'/4 of the southwest'/4 of Section 2, North 000 c 17' 20" West 160.26 feet to the South line of Brookside Subdivision, Unit 3, Plat No. 2, o according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 99, Public Records of Collier m County, Florida; thence along said south line of Brookside Subdivision North 89° 37' 20" East 100.00 feet to the east line of those lands described in said O.R. Book 236, Page 681; thence LO South 00° 17' 20" East and parallel with West said line of the East %z of the Southwest'/4 of the c southwest'/4 of Section 2, a distance of 159.53 feet to the North line of those lands described in o0 said O.R. 118, Page 361; thence along the Naatli land of those lands described in said O.R. ] 18, rn Page 361, North 89° 12' 16" East 1 t t e of those lands described in said04 o O.R. 118, Page 361; thence alo ►ne,rntt ' 00" West 267.97 feet to the North a line of those lands described ► 5 R. Book 2, Page :w e along said North line South 89° 18' 29" West 200.00 f et to -te west line of said East''/2 f th outhwest'/ of the Southwest CD '/4 of Section 2, and the pint q b ing�ftla herein esc 'bed. I- being a part of the soutl east! 4 s u 7 e o es wes 1/4 of Section 2, Township N 50 South, Range 25 Ea , C4 li Co nt , for c�; 70 'L PARCELIV a The West half of the South t ter of the Southeast fitr' f the southwest quarter and the southeast quarter of the sot of the Stu ►•ter; both lying and being in o0 Section 2, Township 50 South, Ra e'2 t 1 ty, Florida; excepting therefrom the o following parcels of land: 1. Lands described in OR Book 2, Page 454, Public Records of Collier County Florida; 2, Lands described in OR Book 118, Page 361, Public Records of Collier County Florida; 3. Lands described in OR Book 236, Page 681, Public Records of Collier County Florida; 4, Any portion of the land described in the foregoing legal description East of the West line of the property described in O.R. Book 233, Page 228, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, 5, Davis Boulevard described in Right of Way Deed recorded in Deed Book 11, Page 59, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. It is recited, agreed and understood by the parties to this conveyance, that a portion of the lands herein conveyed are presently submerged lands, lying south of the subdivisions collectively known as `Brookside". PARCEL V The East 50 feet of the following described lands: A parcel of land lying in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, being more specifically described as follows: Exhibit A to Special Warranty Deed 47560690v.5 Packet Pg. 431 OR 5540 PG 3733 9.A.3.c Beginning at the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the N southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, said point being North 89' 38' 10" east distance 662.10 feet from the southwest corner of said Section 2; thence North 0° 16' 20" West, along the westerly boundary of the said southeast quarter of the E southwest quarter of the southwest quarter, a distance of 242.25 feet to a concrete monument; M thence North 89' 16' 10" East 200 feet to a concrete monument; thence South 0° 16' 20" East m and parallel to the westerly boundary of said southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the a southwest quarter, 243.53 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section; thence South 890 c 38' 10" West, along said Section line, 200 feet to the Point of Beginning; excepting -therefrom a 0- strip of land deeded by Naples Land Development Company to the County of Collier for highway m purposes as recorded in Deed Book 11, Page 59, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 0 LO T 0 0 0 §eM o ti Iq E 2L ° Q. r `o Exhibit A to Special Warranty Deed 47560690v.5 Packet Pg. 432 *** OR 5540 PG 3734 *** 9.A.3.c 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. EXHIBIT "B" Permitted Exceptions All real estate taxes and assessments for 2017 and subsequent years, both general and special, not yet due and payable as of the date hereof. Zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by any governmental authority. All leases pertaining to the Property. All matters and facts that would be shown on or disclosed by an accurate survey or personal inspection of the Property. All matters and exceptions exceptions disclosed in the hereof and any additional matters or � 1� ' 4 1 - 1�1 Exhibit B to Special Warranty Deed 47560690v.5 Packet Pg. 433 9.A.3.c AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL 20190001540 1 John R. Giglio (print name), ), as Manager (title, if applicable) of Naples Marina Holdings, LLC (company, If a licable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner=applicant contract purchaser=and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Clay C. Brooker and Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. "Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L. L. C.) or Limited Company (L. C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member. " • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the `general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stat in it are tr e. Q. - a5- - Sao Sign re Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on . S,ir (date) by John R. Giglio (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as Manager of Naples Marina Holdings, LLC who is personally known to me or who has produced (type of identification) as identification. STAMP/SEAL i+iolmy P�IC AMR of Floddri Anne4hrie Micalizzi My 00mmiMIon GG 969525 E*= OW4n024 CP\08-COA-00115\155 REV 3/24/14 k Signature of Notary Public N c� c �L m �a 0 0 IM 0 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a CD ti Iq Packet Pg. 434 9.A.3.c Co ev County -0000"��� COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership I Naples Marina Holdings, LLC 100 If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Created 9/28/2017 Name and Address 1 % of Ownership Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 435 9.A.3.c Jer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 I % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: C Name and Address Date subject property acquired 8/6/201 8 Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 N R c a� .N 0 0 ML W 0 LO r O O 0 r O N J a ti v N Packet Pg. 436 9.A.3.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Date of option: Co ly County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Own6 Signature Date Clay C. Brooker Agent/Owner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 N c� c m .N 0 0 L m 0 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a CD ti Iq 54 Packet Pg. 437 9.A.3.c Written Summary of Neighborhood Information Meeting #1 Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Date: January 6, 2022 at 5:30 PM Location: Naples Bay Resort and Marina (The Pointe Conference Room) 1500 51" Avenue South Naples, Florida 34102 Zoom: Meeting ID: 824 3446 7982 Passcode: 411653 Presenter: Clay Brooker, Applicant's Agent On January 6, 2022, at approximately 5:30 PM, a Neighborhood Information Meeting was held pertaining to the above captioned rezone application. Clay Brooker, the Applicant's agent, gave the attached presentation at the Naples Bay Resort and Marina in Naples, Florida. A total of 34 attendees were present: 18 in -person (excluding County staff) and 14 via Zoom. A summary of the meeting follows. Mr. Brooker began with a brief introduction, explained the purpose of the Neighborhood Information Meeting, and gave the attached presentation and closing remarks. At approximately 5:50 PM, Mr. Brooker opened the floor for questions. Members of the public expressed concern over various matters, including, but not limited to, the projected increase of vessels coming and going and the potential impact upon, and obstruction to, homeowners' docks; possible noise pollution; boater observation of slow speed and minimum wake zones; and the potential for navigational issues pertaining to the "hairpin" passage with a shallow basin. At approximately 5:54 PM, Mr. Brooker was informed that audio was disabled on Zoom and, consequently, although the virtual attendees were able to see the presentation, they were unable to listen to Mr. Brooker's remarks. The audio issue was resolved, and questions resumed. Shortly thereafter, two additional members of the public attempting to participate virtually arrived in -person. Mr. Brooker assured all attendees that audio was functional, and one in -person attendee confirmed after receiving a message from one of the virtual attendees. Questions resumed until approximately 6:30 PM, at which time the meeting concluded. Packet Pg. 438 euiaeW apisMooa8 - OVS4000640Z-1d : ti6LVZ) sleiialeW dnMoea-uoijeoijddv - a juawg3ejjv :;uauayoejjv W W Ln V W cW G Z Q Q G 0 0 O i 0 co U) W z le N O d O M rl G J CL z z O W a 3 13 W i t sic CL rn M d r Y V f3 d euiaeW apisMooa8 - OVS4000640Z-1d : ti6LVZ) slepejeW dnMoea-uoijeoijddv - a juawg3ejjv :;uauayoejjv z z rI z ui W 2 z 0 d 0 LL 0 i 0 i W Z Ln qml 0 N a Z 0 a r© Ile V t L 13 3 I4 a Ao W t W E LJ m z _ a li euiaeW apisMooa8 - OVS4000640Z-1d : ti6LVZ) sleiialeW dnMoea-uoijeoijddv - a juawg3ejjv :;uauayoejjv E U O C V E 50.7 U Q �! v N •� L! L •f0 3 .� — 'EUJ 1C. E .ro i y1 C G c _" m C L C OC v Q ci y M O O O CA c° mL m^ c o u C7 _ '� -a� 40 a o o`n m ew� M O ri N M O � Ol N! Ln w4 J0 � E O M t0 agN •e6 C2, C V O V t Q th c� co a N a c T H u.i mi a m o L Z O o o M 40 co m ar ^ n m Q N cm Vf ,v m N n w O N c 00 Z C C c CC C C IA J y J w N O m G L N 4, j, 'EL Z J L 1. v O O O m N L O G C C M oC C `" O i v- O VI gn M m rl -O L to O O O W a-1 2 2 O cn a— to = p� in O I cOC cOC cOC Q1 Q NN N � lU Mi N q � W, � rl a a v O � O :3 n u C O O a co L m a, v► an -93` E a Q E `m 3 N '°� p oc w i U� o o m w 00 t07 p uj LLLL ++ 0 +L+ f0 SO +'' ? Y � •.� 7ww-C t r� Y CO Z LLi O i Oq :Yl LNu S v7 Q a V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d 0 0 p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 W •"� 'v' O O O N N 11'1 tD tD G\D N N N N 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL2O19OOO154O) Neighborhood Information Meeting January 6, 2022 Packet Pg. 442 9.A.3.c Voln � -, DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) ATE: 7/21 /20 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH greensite DATE: 19002EX03.DWG BROOKSIDE MARINA PUD REZONING engineering, Inc. (2s(e3ss JOB NO: 19-002 EE—EENGINEERING, INGIREPROD—ON&MODI—ONSPRONIBIIE THODiEXPRESSCONSENT www.GREENSIrE-ENG.COM SHEET: 1 Packet Pg. 443 9.A.3.c _ �A ^ HOLIDAY LANE HARBOR LANE 00 u E"` R i Lu > w n w 0 O 0 00 *,fie T 1x DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) F.qs TI& H ��yy .� AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (REZONING APP PL20190001540) evee 1Oe DATE: 9/13/21 BROOKSIDE MARINA engineering, Inc. FILE: 19002EX04.DWG (2a )4 98 JOB NO: 19-002 12- ENSITEENGINEERING, I—REPRODucTlO—CDIFlDATIONSPROHIBITED —1UTExPRESSCONSENT w .GREENSITE-ENGXOM SHEET: 1 Packet Pg. 444 9.A.3.c 0511N • • • • • • • • • • • • INDICATES AIRPORT NOISE BOUNDARY INDICATES CITY LIMITS C7 ALL PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS WITHIN AIRPORT OVERLAY Z (REFER TOAPPENDIX D OF THE LOCI THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND O SUBDIVISON INDEX - " " j^A n4E ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. N ^:_ "`£"„s` :�: a 04-41 OF THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, Z cmmox renance T pg. AP. �� ?`T ="'T'. ``^?�jg9-a a§a=_•^, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004, AS AMENDED BY THE O .xua d qq :$�,�„�c ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISION INDEX N m°cx cournaRRaxnx �? °ggoOip p'4 REFERENCED HEREON. as>=eoegoo a •5�o,i BY CHAIRMAN �aanx� R RxR,., », o �s=;S9�iaNIIH±i'as � 3 aR°� UNIT, ssea«s�z a: A s s.zia- C.R'p RXRRF RRR '� a ® ATTEST CLERK NJ COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION TWP 50S RNG 25E SEC(S) 02 SO 12 ® MAP NUMBER: 05025 Packet Pg. 445 I Packet Pg. 446 9.A.3.c f- f :d. �.*-1 �'.. Packet Pg. 447 9.A.3.c N 0' cv c �L Cm L .y O O L m 0 LO 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a an r, Iq Packet Pg. 448 9.A.3.c N W R c a a� Comparison of Uses Allowed in Existing RSF-4 District and Proposed C-4 District Y 0 0 ML M RSF-4 Proposed C-4 District Permitted Uses • Single-family dwellings • Marinas (4493 and 4499 - except canal operation, cargo salvaging, ship dismantling, *Family care facilities. lighterage, marine salvaging, marine wrecking, and steamship leasing) *Educational plants and public schools with an agreement with Collier County • Water Transportation of Passengers (4489 — except airboats/swamp buggy rides) • Water Transportation Services (4499), limited to boat cleaning, boat hiring (except pleasure), boat livery (except pleasure), commercial boat rental, and chartering of commercial boats • Amusement and Recreation Services (7999), limited to pleasure boat rentals, operation of charter or party fishing boats, canoe/kayak/rowboat rentals, houseboat rentals (except not for liveaboard purposes on the Property), personal watercraft rentals, and tourist guides Accessory Uses • Uses and structures that are accessory and • All structures and uses accessory to marinas, incidental to uses permitted as of right in the including, but not limited to, boat slips (wet), RSF districts. piers, walkways, davits, boat lifts, boat lift canopies, and boat ramps. O Iq LO 0 0 0 0 N J rL 0 ti N Packet Pg. 449 9.A.3.c • Private docks and boathouses • One guesthouse • 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 preliminary subdivision plat 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. Conditional Uses • Noncommercial boat launch and multiple dock facilities • Churches • Schools, private • Child care centers and adult day care centers • Cluster development to include one- and two- family structures • Golf courses N ca c �L C� C .N 0 0 m 0 le 0 0 0 CD 0 N J a Gl m Y a Packet Pg. 450 9.A.3.c • Group care facilities (category 1), care units, nursing homes, assisted living facilities; and continuing care retirement communities • Category I1 group care facilities and care units, only when the tenancy of the person or persons under care would not. i. Constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals, ii. Result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, or iii. Result in the housing of individuals who are engaged in the current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance, as defined in section 802 of title 21, U.S. Code. • Recreational facilities intended to serve an existing and/or developing residential community as represented by all of the properties/lots/parcels included in an approved preliminary subdivision plat, or site development plan. • Model homes and model sales centers. • Public schools without an agreement with Collier County 0 0 0 0 CD 0 N J a El M Y a Packet Pg. 451 9.A.3.c Two Public Hearings • Before Whom? o Collier County Planning Commission o Board of County Commissioners • Where? o Coller County Government Headquarters 3299 Tamiami Trail East o 3rd Floor of Administration Building • When? o Not yet scheduled o Mailed Notice, Newspaper ads, Posted Sign Packet Pg. 452 9.A.3.c Questions Clay Brooker, Applicant's Agent Tim Finn, County Planner ccbrooker@ na plesIaw.com (239) 261-9300 timothy.finn @colliercountyfLgov (239) 252-4312 N R c a� .N Y 0 0 ML W 0 LO O O O r O N J d Packet Pg. 453 9.A.3.c AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear, and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified The said notice contained the laymen's description of the subject property, a description of the proposed change, and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting, The attached letter, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance (Signature o(Applicant's Agent) State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this ly-�A day of December, 2021 by Clay C. Brooker, who is personally known to me. (Signature of Notary Public) /L%F'/,7e-C Ri C C i Printed Name of Notary G:\NIM Procedures/Affidavit Of Compliance - NIM Oct20I0.Doc (Notary Seal) RENEE RICCI Notary Public - State of Florida a" o; Commission # GG 231848 My Comm. Expires Aug 3, 2022 Bonded through National Notary Assn. [13503-0001/3884401/1] Packet Pg. 454 9.A.3.c Serial Number ustne Ss 21-02404C ob§WQ& Published Weekly Naples, Collier County, Florida COUNTY OF COLLIER STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Ernesto Rendon who on oath says that he/she is Publisher's Representative of the Business Observer a weekly newspaper published at Naples, Collier County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Nei- hborhood Information Meetin- in the matter of Nei,hborhood Meetin, on Januan 6.2022 at 5:30 p.m. at Naples Bay Resort and Marina in the Court, was published in said newspaper in the issues of 12/10/2021 Affiant further says that the said Business Observer is a newspaper published at Naples, Collier County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published and has been entered as periodicals matter at the Post Office in Naples in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he/she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in said newspaper. *This Notice was placed on the newspaper's website and floridapublicnotices.com on the same day the notice appeared in the newspaper. OZZ — Ernesto Rendoli Sworn to and subscribed, and personally appeared by physical presence before me, loth day of December, 2021 A.D. by Ernesto Rendon who is personally known to me. Notary Public, State of Florida (SEAL) � 1AYPGB-& Donna Condon iliP Comm.#HH015747 Expires: June 29, 2024 ,Q;gi Bonded Thru Aaron Notary NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETTTION NO. PL20190001540 Rezone of Brookside Marina Submerged Lands In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code requirements, a neighborhood meeting hosted by Clay C. Brooker, Esq. of Chefy Passidomo, PAL,, representing Naples Marina Holdings, LLC (Applicant) will be held January 6, 2022, 5:30 pm, at the Naples Bay Resort and Marina in The Pointe conference room (1500 Fifth Avenue South, Naples, FL 34102). The Applicant has submitted a formal application to Collier County seeking ap- proval of a rezone of t4.4 acres of submerged lands generally located at 2015 Davis Boulevard (see map below) from RSF-4 (Residential Single Family) to C-4 (General Commercial), limited to water -dependent and water -related uses. The Applicant desires to install additional wet slips in the submerged lands and use them for ma- rina purposes in conjunction with the adjacent uplands to the south (commonly known as the Brookside Marina). In general, the proposed rezone would limit the uses permitted within the submerged lands to marinas (and uses accessory to man nas), water transportation of passenbTrs, water transportation services, and amuse-i ment and recreation services such as pleasure boat rentals and operation of charte6 or party fishing boats. Liveaboards would be prohibited. rnatxrr Due to COVID-19, special accommodations will be made to allow for attendance virtually (via Zoom). If you would prefer to attend virtually, please notify us via email at raricci(anapleslaw corn prior to January 5, 2022, to allow us to send you login instructions. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact Clay Brooker by email: cebrookerQa napleslawoom or phone: 239-261-9300. Any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the gov- erning authority. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational pur- poses, it is not a public hearing. December 10, 2021 21-02404C Packet Pg. 455 9.A.3.c EDWARD K. CHEFFY Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer JOHN M. PASSIDOMO Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer LOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO Board Certified Appellate Practice Lawyer DAVID A. ZULIAN Board Certified Construction Lawyer CLAY C. BROOKER Board Certified City, County and Local Government Lawyer CHEFFY PASSIDOMO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 821 Fifth Avenue South Naples, Florida 34102 Telephone: (239) 261-9300 www.napieslaw.com December 7, 2021 Subject: Neighborhood Information Meeting Rezone of Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Petition No. PL20190001540 Dear Property Owner: WILLIAM J. DEMPSEY Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer DEBBIE SINES CROCKETT RACHAEL S. LOUKONEN Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer BRIAN J. THANASIU Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer KIMBERLY D. SWANSON JONATHAN R. FITZMAURICE Of Counsel: GEORGE L. VARNADOE Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a request to rezone the submerged lands generally located at 2015 Davis Boulevard (see map below). The Applicant is seeking approval of a rezone of ±4.4 acres of submerged lands from RSF-4 (Residential Single Family) to C-4 (General Commercial), limited to water - dependent and water -related uses. The Applicant desires to install additional wet slips in the submerged lands and use them for marina purposes in conjunction with the adjacent uplands to the south (commonly known as the Brookside Marina). In general, the proposed rezone would limit the uses permitted within the submerged lands to marinas (and uses accessory to marinas), water transportation of passengers, water transportation services, and amusement and recreation services such as pleasure boat rentals and operation of charter or party fishing boats. Liveaboards would be prohibited. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) will be held to provide you an opportunity to become informed about the rezone request, ask any questions and express any concerns you may have. The Neighborhood Information Meeting with be held on January 6, 2022, 5:30 p.m., at the Naples Bay Resort and Marina in The Pointe conference room located at 1500 Fifth Avenue South, Naples, FL 34102. N ca C �L ca d O O L m 0 v 0 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a C) F- It r1 [13503-0001/3879480/1] Packet Pg. 456 9.A.3.c Due to COVID-19, special accommodations will be made to allow people to attend virtually (via Zoom). Should you choose to participate via Zoom please notify us via email at raricci(j�napleslaw.com prior to January 5, 2022, to allow us to send you login instruction. Please be sure to include your name and street address. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact Clay Brooker by email: ccbrookerCc-)napleslaw.com or phone: 239-261-9300. 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. CCB/rar Enclosure Very truly yours, Clay C. Brooker, Esq. Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. RED ENT SUBJECT Tool _ PROPE y f Cd•dn• 81 � IL1 F. gill o 111 [ 13503-0001 /3 879480/1 ] Packet Pg. 457 euiaew apis3iooa8 - M WOMOZ-1d V6LVZ) slei jejew dn3j3e8-uoi;e3ijddv - a ;uewLj3ejjv :;ugwl43ejjv q co `O Ci It lu IL ca co r a� Y a V c a m O V N I` V N M w O m m V m V V N M N I- M O In O I.- O O W w c0 LO Cs n V O M I, n V N O O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O CLO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O CCO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J N N O c0 O O O O V O co O V co O N N 00 co 00 N 00 N V V O (D O (0 N 't co (0 N (O 00 00 O V O V co CD N co co O V V 00 M M a0 (n O (n V (D N O M M V M V O Cl N V I` N Cn N V (D M 00 M Ul O O In (n M CO O 00 00 (0 CO _M O N N (O V 00 O O O o N N O O N o O O O O M O N O O O O O M N N M O O M O O M N O 0 0 n 0 0 M O O N M N lL W w O O m w m W m r M w w m t0 r CO cO w M m w w w w cO cO cO M M M w M m r w M M w M O M m m O w O O ao M m m 01 n CO O O) 00 m O) D7 O to O (A to O to (W CA O 07 Q1 (n (T CA CA O 00 CO o M (A W to m m m 01 O W Cn W M V O V V V r V V V r- r V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V (n 0 V V V V V V V V V V V O LO N O N N N r N N N 1� r N N N N N n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N f� CD N N N N N N N N N N N O C o R I M O O O Ov Ov JLL vVO CrvA NoQ O M0v 0vM 0vcVo 0v V0v 0 it v C7 v v0 V0 v v v v mv Nv LO vO v(D co CA O V I ul I CD rI m n O M LO CD O m r in I` OO ti M N CO N I- w OMV OIOC I- rV 1 cN N MNN OL? O y u! N Icr-O OI 1 'T LLN �I V 4 V V 4O4 4 4 ~ 4 V V V V V 4 4 v V V N 4 V v 4 V 0O OCDCDOOOCD CD F vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvT N Cl) M Cl) Cl) M Cl) ¢ Cl) Cl) M Cl) Cl) M M Z CO x M Cl) Cl) Cl) M M Cl) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M M 14 IJi IJi mLJi. IJi W LLLJiZULJi IJiLLLL LE LLLLn-LLOIJi LLLL LL LLLL�LLIJ111LLIL LLLLLL LLLL L�IJi IJi IJi_IJi LJi. LJi. IJi IJi IJiLL U (0 co (n � (n (n O 0 (n (6c Cn fn mO m U Q co Q (n U (n (n m (n 0 (n fn (n fn m U (n (n w (n (n U U) fn Cn (n (n Cn U (n (6C Cwp J J, w J J F- .J J a J J J J J Z J J= J❑ J J J J J J Y J J J J r J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J a o aEL CLCL ao_}Uan.an.n.za.a.za.ZO.dada.wUI-ILCLn- a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aaa Go zzOzzLLZZMWZZZZZOZzmz�zzzzzz,zzzzmzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz w to W 00 y O � Q O Z N .0. O O C W 0 00 a M Z O (Op O w C pry N G 'a Q oO a V r L y 00 M J Z J Z a. J of Q Q J Z } > m O W O O O O W Q O a Q (7 m (n m m m m ❑ w 0 2 z w Z w w w J i w C x d" Q v = m m 2 x x W 2 CU rn U ~ w o co In ccq OV m v v LO v c v o to m N m co co rn m w O V 0 N (` r N U 4 ram+ 0 w O LO r W J M O z p o Z o ❑ W Q o W y p N N 0z g � >Ho F-y O w J M a a+a N wJz �zY ¢¢o O�C7 U❑zzwwz LuzQwZQZpZp > >z ¢ = z Q 9 Z Q W J Z d J O w z� J❑ J� U� m 0 0 J� J-� 0 Z> J 0 J 0 Z J J Z z 0_ J Z a. J Z J> y y �O�Q� JwxQ a.OZ�(n J a.� 00'0W Y�XQ(n mX0 a'ER�}0�-}OfD��a'J Q'�}}m t O OD (n>00YOUa. W x W W O(q W OO❑pYOZOwO WN W W<NoOYOJOOaa CD w m a 0 0 m W m z U w p U m O U w' p m x m m z O m w m m J m W p m o m m Q m m 9 9 D CL LU oal XO¢o¢¢¢a(7J¢m¢Wr}�a�z�¢z~¢¢aWxa�¢X¢wQo?oaX¢¢O¢¢oo¢ OU�xxpxWz0z�IM-jWOF- �w(nxpFxxg(nmx}x¢xxmcnn xmOxQx�xxxxp O CO V LO V� N V V x N 0 W CD W co Z Z V f� ❑ M U) (O O 00 C)zmr V O O O O 0 O Z DCD OO o V V N f� r- f O N N CA M a0 M W O �- N g O 0 0 V I� 0 0 W CD w (CS N CO Q CTi W W M N N V O N 0 0 w Q1 N W 0 0 O M C 0 (!) a. V NrN CO N(n V rw Nr sl(D2HNUhNN�rrZ.-r.-�rJrrrNrNrLL Nmr 04 NNrN () C L d m � U c m J W J N LL .t0. Q— �z tav~J W F W z 0 o ❑ F- to O x X w O > CD z F- co CL O W� OCV ZJ w(D U � w� J xryLLW�O?�x Q J�F- w e~ o x w ❑ z(n z x ����w z❑ >(n p o 2F- W 7xs QF- >z z zz z� us �pQ0¢of0wOfw <�w�x¢ = to QZ 7 Z0J0 Q JJ W C' Z� JWZ ~- 0Qx W Qa F- t6'ti ZJ J2Q W W Z W �(na_Q xU(70C (nQ w �ZZU_JdJ W Z J=-x V JF'Q JZ v m J O U} W C7 U � 0 U: O Q¢ w x J ❑ Q J_ O U J Z Q=¢ aO � z U Q U U g W y a NJ¢j JmQZ J W ly JZmQZJ}W W 0Y }}JJ YD w Q LL M w x w Q� VJ W4'QZULL=m= LLJJ O U c m(np F-(n� ¢—�Z>� 0 U (n(nU O QJx— �Pf W �p F- Fa O QQOZQQ ZZ—JLLa_'Ux JZZJQWWW>V'mZr2 OZQmJQJm 2� 0 vQ a+ m0o W O❑0���F-ces WJJJF-z0��ai' Oa-❑pZ0Q W J���mULU WNfn>ZOmYZ W Q-i oca� a;rnmU��Q���¢U200000ai>ja-ww»5�::)OZ5O¢¢¢wwoERXX:¢wQ0Z) Z u Q. rrNQQQmmmmUUUUUUUUUUU❑00❑❑❑❑❑ W WLLLL(�C7 C�(�(�U' U(7 (70 1 x-»M7� euiaew apis3iooa8 - OVS60006WZ-ld : V6LVZ) sleijejew dn3j3e8-uoi;e3ijddv- a;uewLj3ejjv :;ugwl43ejjv 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O 0 0 0 0 WO m 0 0 0 m m 0 0 m mm 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 O m o o m o m m o o m 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O o m o o o N 0 0 W o O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W co, y m W W M W N N m N W W N N O N Nm N N O N M m m W V' O v N W O v co co W co W v N O v W O O N m o N v W W O O O _ _ _ _ _ v N v Ln (O v N _O V M W n O O W N m n v _N v W W N M W W O O O_ N O w W W W w _O O_ W O O O M O O O N N O N O W N Ln N M O Ln 0 0 O_ O N W O m m W W W M M M M W W M W W W W W W W W M W W W W W W W W W W M W W W W W M W W W W W W W W W mmmmmwmWmLnmmmmmmmmLnLomm0 mmmmW Wmmm co Wmmmm0mf`mm W WMmmWmWmmmo v v v O o v v v v r- v v v o S 0 0 o r- r-- v o Ln Ln v v v v Ln v v v v v v v v v o v v m v v v v O v v Ln v v v v o to N N N O O N N N N t, N N N o o o O o r\ r` N O r I'- N N N N r- N N N N N N N N N O N N Ln N N N N O N N h N N N N 0 O N M O v M M p O M I O O ti M CO W _W W M r-- r Ln � _m N co LO N O W N I W N W o N N N N (O CO ! a p p N N co N C W N N N N p N N N N N N N N N N N p N N O N '� N N N O N O OO OOO OO os�s�vQOy OO q' s{� CD q'M car I WO OO O W �000 i I I I O O o 0 0 I I I I 1; a h i l l i I ;, I I 1 i O co 0 i i i �i �i Cq i N 4 v v 4 v 4 N v N v v� V' Ln Ln Ln Ln m Lf'1 � '� O) V V' V Y N v V M 4 V v `V' O 4 4 v M � M� st v� V' V V V' V i m o_moo_o_O_oMWWWW_oo_o_0000wo_o_o_vo_o__o_o��_o_ooxX W _oo_Oo_o_o_o¢o_o_Oo O NNNNN w M O ZI--Jma > v mvmvvm(O vvvvv vvv vvvmm vm mmv cnv mvv�. W vvv w vvvvvvv vvvv M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M a M M M M M M M M Z CO CO M S Q Q Z M M M CO M CO CO M Cl CO CO U >> J J J J J J J =r J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Z J J J J Y =� J J J �= Z Q 7 J J J J J J J F J J J J LL LL LL LL LL LL LLO LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLLLLL J LL LL LL. F LL LL LL LLa OLL LL LL� o� OLLLL LLLLLLLL U- LLLL LLLL U) (n (O CO (7 (n CO C:) CO co, W Cn U) W W W W W U) U (n co co co W = W U) (o Z U) co co to 0 0 W co co d Z Q J_ LFL� U) in 0 U:n U) U W Cn (n U) (n J J J J J J J Q J J J J J U U U U U J J J J J J J (n J J J° J J J J}¢ J J J— Q Z J J J J J J J U J J J J aaaaaaavaaaaazzzzzaaaaaaaaaaa�a(LILEL Vaaa�z aaaaaaazaaaa ¢¢¢Q¢¢a2¢Q¢aQwwwwwQQ¢QQQQ¢aQaXQQ¢aw— 2QQaLuQg�°Q¢Q¢Q¢Q¢QQQ ZZZZZZZOZZZZz»>>>Zzzzzzz2zzzmzzzzzUzzZZ(OaFMzZZZZZZ�zzzz z J 0 07 a Q 2 O m ¢ Q U U) Z w2 3:3t N N o (r Z Q CD � 7 Jw a U >a da u1 Qm OY OO F > W z Q m o w 2 m 00 m H W W NO LL In U U) N U) N O m m r• Ln Z J ❑ Z > j Z 0 m 0 m LL LU 0 Q m m M O m O O v cn � N N m � T Z W 0 > fn J W LU W Z O O Z 0 W W ❑ Q z W Z Q > Q Z Z W W Z ZQZaa ao(n Z W W W» W LUZZZ�z-j ZZzZ CLQ<0 ZU) o J W Zz z Z Z Q Z >>>-- W Q Z Q Q LL.a>-22aa J�>a�Z W W W ❑❑ OQ�I-Y�Sa������Qf-~�mStYUO J W ❑OQ� �J� ��UU a a J a a a- g a F a N z z Z❑] J J O❑ Z z J Q a Z a J a a Q P W a> N a H O W U a H J Z J N� J U U 22°Szz❑2 W SLLS W U»>QQOO[DZU)Wmc0¢SU) W 222�r`ZS❑J W Q�a(j W 0]W �J V)2Q2Sm 00 WF- OW WWJJaa Z Qw _ WFdo>- � Y n� mv00000 ¢oLnZU ___ OOMQvoow W m Mml- - m_ oq_ v❑M_MorLnaMr-om(0 N W W m to v N Z w O m O O W M W N_ O v M W N N V' O ti v W O N W W to v m W N N O W W O O M Q Ln (D (n 0 0 0 m m a a (M W N N W N O m W m Q M W m N 2 0 .- O N m N O Q N O W m 0 0 N V rMM VNM2 r-NQQ W W W mmaa.-❑NC"Ij C,gCRI aQm NUNLn—a �! VMN-2 NNa.-.-.-� U > J V) W F- N x ❑ Z U U U U U w Z j U z Q 2❑ co j U } Z_0 J JF �:J J2LLJ J }~ UO OJ O a(� O a. lUU) U) U) UO CL > J w w JJOW 2UCDCDC7(7JJ > Z O W a FNO L U Z U UU `.e �U)WMOZZZZZW W W W UYF- wF �0 } w zz oa wLL2a2❑❑❑❑❑» ¢ aka F-0> W-'Z (n a z a a 0L) J J(OF 2¢c4F- W 00000 � ¢ w a W� 0 W Z>¢¢tnaZtn - F a ❑¢ 20(Suj000<Ye zzXY<OXOZZZZZ00❑Z>-00< Q0 OZa ZC�a�ZZwwZQmN�m��ijZ(OEL LL, x xwW LZLLLLMofL WU�F-JQUoaaa¢¢a¢a Wz❑JUQ�¢ a�o�Z�ZmmQ('���UWi�¢¢¢¢��Q� }WU°OF-� °o- OMMMMMMF—F— LL o°w�❑�Y W>xM<W0C;C;azW o� z oo��— wazzzU)zC6�IL O(O(OU�(n(O(O(n(nz- �aaJU(nJ(nYa�� U❑❑ypC�Cd 00 ZLLWztr� Z wOOJ W �aO W —W W W W W W W W O(nQOc�U°S qaaJ fn U)O�mxaa w0-jU) W LL U— O W W ¢ z� z z v o� o�❑ O a a a a a a Ja Ja -j Y¢ czj �� 0 8 Y (I� w g � Q U m Z 2 x C7[O Z� N F J J m O W O H LL Z Z Z wQ00¢¢QUw?O¢QQQQQQQWQ=¢¢¢www-aOoaQww22-0000❑Q¢Uwx��H�H� Y�JJJ�������z zzzzzzzz00aaaaaa aaaaaaaW W W W W X X X W 0 0 W0 W 0 0(OW00 q euiaew apis3iooa8 - M 6 OMOZ-1d : V6LVZ) slepejew dn3j3e8-uoi;e3ijddv - a ;uewLj3ejjv :;ugwl43ejjv ai Q ci co O LO Ln V m (D O M m r M O V N O m (n (n OD O w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o cD 0 0 m 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O o 0 o 0 o 0 0 Co o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 o (VD (n N NN.00O Nf0 O O" V, u.) 0e W c,4 �(O 0070 O N N (0 (0 O O O O r r 0 0 O r O O r r O O N N co co co co Co co co co Co Co Co OD Co co OD 00 W OD m co co co m m m c) a) cc m m oD co00(D mm OD co m mm V rn V V V O O V E V V V V V v) O V V V V V V N r N N N O Cl N t- N N N N N r O N N N N N N r r r Q Q O m V MLO N (n ZZ N o r N N N N N Q Q I O N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 l o l,To 1 o 19 U U V V N m m N V V V m V V V V V V V V V V V V O O O O r 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N V O V V> V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V M M M a M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M (fY il'1 V M J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J LL LLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LL LLLLLL LL LLLLLLLL 00LL (o fn Z lA fn [A fn C6 (6 (6 fn In (A (A fn fn (n UJ fn (n z Z fA W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J O O J aa-WMMMMaaaiLMMMa-MMMMM Ofma Z Z Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z �� Z Cl) (n Z ❑❑ Z� j Q Z W❑ W❑ Q Z OO JO O O w 00 w x x mm x 07 N U7 (n ((7 co coM (n Z N Omi O Q r N r r r N J W Q J ❑ ❑ F F J N? a x>> LU Z Z u- N N x W Z O Y❑❑ U' (D ❑ Z x LL } Q Q Z J- W� H a-1 0 0 ❑_ ❑_ (� —U' Z w❑ z z Z W LL W W OLY 00Y -W zzwwJJ>-(no>->-Wo W W w No Q Q J W O �� Y Y J J Q Y N Q Q z O mm�F_F-ZWM§DOo��oomA2�MHEM X X❑ Z Z W Z= �j F- O O J O p' J J_ Q Q Q Q' Q Q W D Q x W W< a 0 O W O O Q Z x x W mx?¢(ncn=cnxW Qmmwwxm mxxg W CD CD CD Ln(D (D > m m F- N V> (D O (D W W V V N V m o V O O M N c0 W(- 10 Y N N a (n M N m u) N N M m N Z W M M m U) W W' U W z Z W a Q w LLI O LY JJJ0 W< _ _ O OLL Q j ❑J-�(n �ca W x >-x x W m W'7�} '� J W W O F J LLO JJ V%�FUJ �-QLU LL W W U W dY Z Zcoo W m W JJ0 ~�Y Jmm(� W ZOf ❑ �U00 4z(na10mwo DO &❑ Q❑❑❑=� m> W= LL LL' W Q❑' LL O U J Q W).: OOuIUQQm❑ WC�C�C�U XZ��m Z_ Z Z UUY�eWZZwvOQzo �o--j �mC7aWx(y� H Q W W x x U J Q W W J J O J Z LL W d(L Q ( ;(n-F-F-»>����3:3:V r�l.n�1r.QiQ�ooz 9.A.3.c Written Summary of Neighborhood Information Meeting #2 Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Date: July 19, 2022 at 5:30 PM Location: Collier County Growth Management Community Development Department Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104. Zoom: Webinar ID: 822 7184 4753 Presenter: Clay Brooker, Applicant's Agent On July 19, 2022, at approximately 5:30 PM, a Neighborhood Information Meeting was held pertaining to the above captioned rezone application. Clay Brooker, the Applicant's agent, gave the enclosed presentation at the Collier County Growth Management Community Development Department, Room 609/610, Naples, Florida. Approximately 29 attendees were present: 10 in -person and 19 via Zoom. A summary of the meeting is below. Mr. Brooker began with a brief introduction, explained the purpose of the Neighborhood Information Meeting, and gave the enclosed presentation. At approximately 6:04 PM, Mr. Brooker opened the floor for questions. The following questions were posed (responses noted in bold)*: 1) How will parking for the marine be handled after the uplands property is conveyed? A private agreement between the parties to the contract. 2) Have there been or will there be impact studies on the environmental impact (i.e., reduction in mangroves)? Mangroves will remain; exotics will be removed. 3) Is the parking easement in perpetuity or for a limited time? Easement will run with the land. 4) Will subsequent owners of the submerged lands be bound to conditions in the ordinance? Yes, terms in the ordinance adopting the rezone will be binding on successor owners. 5) What are the operating hours for the marina, and can they be modified to end operations prior to 5PM? John Combes from Freedom Boat Club responded: Marco Island location is restricted by the marina to 8AM-5PM; all other operations are sunrise to sunset (including Bayfront, Bonita Shores, and Bonita Beach). Packet Pg. 461 9.A.3.c 6) What are the total number of wet slips? There are 39 wet slips today; Petitioner is proposing an additional 73 slips to reach a total of 112 wet slips. The Department of Environmental Protection has approved up to 112 wet slips on the property. 7) With objection to the number of annual trips in and out of the marina, how many of the existing slips from years past were commercial versus residential? Unknown, however a different member of the public claimed that the prior slips were residential so the number of trips will undoubtedly increase. 8) How many charter boats will be permitted and what size will the vessels be? Petitioner envisions a mix of uses within the marina. Some personal, some chartered, some Freedom Boat Club vessels. The vessel size is naturally limited by depth of the waters and fixed bridges that will not accommodate a tall "super structure" vessel. 25-30- footer is the maximum. The number of charter boats is dependent on the market. The marina opens the slips for rent or purchase (likely for rent). 9) There was mention of residential use; can you clarify the proposed zoning? C-4 is commercial. Limited to marina and docks. 10) If the current zoning is residential, how is there a commercial business on the property? Pre-existing nonconformity. When the wet slips were built, they were conforming uses as the uplands is zoned C-4. Any land zoned C-4 can use the water as a marina. Unfortunately, when the wet slips were torn down, the legal nonconformity was extinguished. Everything at the property today is still a legal non -conformity. 11) How many boats are permitted on the 39 wet slips existing today? Petitioner's consultant, Hans Wilson, responded that there are 112 permitted wet slips and utilization of the grandfathered 39 wet slips is likely regulated by the regulatory document for the uplands that originally permitted the 39 grandfathered slips. Ray Bellows commented that he would ask Tim Finn to get the regulatory document describing how many boats per slip are permitted. Clay Brooker advised that the site development plan recently amended allows 234 slips on the property (upland and submerged lands wet slips). 12) Are there any buffer zones or setbacks required given the proximity of the uplands to the neighboring properties (i.e., narrow canal)? Ray Bellows responded that something may be required after environmental staff reviews the application. 13) Is there an impact study that can be done regarding the number of trips that will occur? No current county or state regulations that require an impact study in this context. 14) How did the property become commercial rather than residential and owned by the Brookside Homeowners' Association? Petitioner was unable to address this question with certainty but suggested it was sold at some point and noted that the C-4 zoning district has existed for 20 years, give or take. 15) Who are the owners behind Naples Marina Holdings? Naples Marina Holdings is a single member entity owned by John Giglio. 4864-9713-9209, v. 1 Packet Pg. 462 9.A.3.c 16) Who will own the uplands? The 2.8 acres of uplands are under contract. Petitioner's agent is not at liberty to disclose the potential buyer, however, the preapplication meeting notes are public records. 17) How can we ensure an impact study is required prior to approval? Contact County Environmental staff: Craig Brown and Jaime Cook. 18) How many boats occupy each pod and are there more than 10 pods? There are 63 boats on site with some fendered off outside of the t-docks; theoretically there could be seven (7) boats tied to each of the pods on the east side of the ramp. However, there will be no more boats fendered off overnight. 19) Of the 112 wet slips, how many are exclusively for the Freedom Boat Club? The existing site plan authorizes 234 wet and dry; 137 wet and the balance dry. Under the previous design/uses, 39 slips were shown on the existing floating docs. However, the site is authorized by DEP for 112 wet slips. At approximately 7:25 PM Mr. Brooker confirmed there were not further questions from the attendees and the meeting concluded. *Note that the list of questions and answers is for summary purposes only and does not constitute a verbatim recitation of the public comment portion of the NIM. Please refer to the enclosed recording as needed. 4864-9713-9209, v. 1 Packet Pg. 463 q euiaeW apisMooa8 - OVS4000640Z-1d : ti6LbZ) sleiialeW dnMoea-uoijeoijddv - a juauayoejjv :;uauayoejjv ai a ti Z `0 r Q 0 z a 0 0 0 0 S W z un 0 O 0 cri I O N J a z 0 a tea-} �ti o C�vpC� G can q ` r\ ) J \.'D \f) J W q euiaew apis3iooa8 - M 6 OMOZ-1d : V6LVZ) slei jejew dn3j3e8-uoi;e3ijddv - a ;uewLj3ejjv :;ugwl43ejjv Q ai O M O1 c OJ G7 O > N O a a xt O 3 M a N m m m m m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a c O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ O. C. a C. o. a O. a C. d C. C_ o. O. O. c. C. C. C. C. C. u n n a n o. a n o. c. n a o. n a n p. a s p. a n ON (n qA V1 N T N "1 N N m m M d' O 7� N oo M M O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N F rq O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a c N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0! p \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ n n n n n n n n n n n r, � cu oc a, u z 0 m N' 0) ¢ V 1A L N V m M N M LL M LL o0 LL ^�� J a: u N v °1 a CL LL ULL N a a a�i ¢ a v vM M v a3@ a z z > E z z Z M z rn N u.i O 07 07 v j c @ c @ J J J J @ Q @ W p c a a @ Z N J M��-' J N J () N @ C a' a J J J p 0@ o Z Q a a M a c 3 LL Q Q❑ > c o a = a« o s o @ ro 0 @ 2 2 2 2 @ >0 bob y @ 2 a t 2 2 �. 00 00 o N �t "5 W u �0 0) � a' N N 00 a 01 Ol M h "1 h t0 p O 01 rl rl N ei 0) a N LM h N N a O0 a0 h O C Q rl rl rl N o0 @ O 01 cl O O rH M rl M M O 00 rl 00 M u Z N rl Lo N e{ N r1 N H " N w O M h rl N N O N \ 7 u 3 n p u O O E m D a«i 'M 'M `—' 0 0 v c E E'er v A.2 E to o E 0 v 0o c a E Q� aY`w'�@1 3 u to c ai a a) v c c of °' E 5 C6 W 3 w u Q U N ri 'V O w N M R N h 2 ` E a r`0 0�0 0 E o � n z E 4 c N y o@ O u 0 3co 0(DCD2uW u E 3 N O. C 0) E @ Y a Z �o c a E aai c> p�@ m £ s CC Oc H c0 Q L. ❑ li ❑ « E E E c u u 3 u 6 E E 3 u3 @ O O u E o u i E E `—' u c @ uO op o E o Epu% H •o a� EE' C C ?� @ >' A E 00 Y .O � E c ° � O0 oEnto % ° o o �aCJ�i E'aG Ew ?r v O C o u .0 ? a m v o. E M E ro U a O. Y 2 E y £ Y Q E U o > 01 0 c o E a c@ y c a`� r 2 �a aci 3 o E e o N u@ c y@ M o n o m m ¢ Q a o. Lu m .t c c y Y H Y L y t 07 Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (PL20190001540) Second Neighborhood Information Meeting J U LY 1912022 HOLIDAY LANE HARBOR LANE DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH greensite DATE: 7r21rz0 BROOKSIDE MARINA PUD REZONING FILE: 19OD2Ex03.DNJG avcae JO B NO: 19-W2 SHEET: 1 HOLIDAY LANE HARBOR LANE y Or- w w cc •� --- _ ;qlkI Us DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) 4�J AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (REZONING APP PL20190001540) �� DATE 9/13/21 FILE. 19002Ex04.DViG BROOKSIDE MARINA JOB No. 19-002 r-n-..a.r-n,cw-asnonaawae�cs,ano,reern..a-ena�caa* rrwrtr �si.c.¢ai SHEET 1 w T Y Zcpvw %OM AND REFEREVED HEREON. 0Y_ -- A] ILS1 COMWA4M D&ELOPME!!T DM WO __C�MRWNI TAP WS RND 25E 3ECf91 02 30 IQ .� �b a a ! T 4410 s 4fr $ 0ASrWs -,fit` � �« �, '� � •' AERIAL OF COVERED DOC �q • • PROPOSED DOCKSLIPS DEPICTED LAYOUT IS CONCEPTUAL AND WILL BE F04ALLZED DURING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS I a i i II it II I II II it 11 II II II II 11 II LEWND: omTeRMVISIJ0M9WM LANDS 4.4 ACRES CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN [SUBMERGED LANDS] BROOKSIDE MARINA e^eareir,eev n.lc„e..merinu.r�.urawrrwm.nw,lrn eewramw.m { 11 ere. 1rwl� englnmring, Inc. f..� ea — •xxac-mrsrlrslc.— DIe 2 EXISTING DOCKSLPS TYP. GRAPHICAL SCALE 0 50 100 SCALE � DATE: 7/4/2022 FILE: 79002Z12.DWG JOB NO: 19-002 SHEET: 1 9.A.3.c 0 9.A.3.c Comparison of Uses Allowed in Existing RSF-4 District and Proposed District RSF-4 Proposed C-4 District Permitted Uses • Single-family dwellings • Marinas (4493 and 4499 - except canal operation, cargo salvaging, ship dismantling, *Family care facilities. lighterage, marine salvaging, marine wrecking, and steamship leasing) *Educational plants and public schools with an agreement with Collier County • Water Transportation of Passengers (4489 — except airboats/swamp buggy rides) • Water Transportation Services (4499), limited to boat cleaning, boat hiring (except pleasure), boat livery (except pleasure), commercial boat rental, and chartering of commercial boats • Amusement and Recreation Services (7999), limited to pleasure boat rentals, operation of charter or party fishing boats, canoe/kayak/rowboat rentals, houseboat rentals (except not for liveaboard purposes on the Property), and tourist guides Accessory Uses • Uses and structures that are accessary and • All structures and uses accessory to marinas, incidental to uses permitted as of right in the including, but not limited to, boat slips (wet), RSF districts. piers, walkways, davits, boat lifts, boat lift canopies, and boat ramps. 10 Comparison of Uses Allowed cont... Conditional Uses • Private docks and boathouses • On eguesthouse • Recreational facilities that serve as an ion tegral p art of a residential development and have been designated, reviewed and approved on a site development pion ofpretiminory subdivision plat for that development. Recreational focilitiesmoy include, but are not limited to, golf course, clubhouse, community center building and tennis facilities, parks, ploygro un ds on d playfi gilds. • Noncommercial boat launch and multiple dock facilities • Ch arch es ■ Schools, private • Childcare centers and adult day care centers • Cluster development to include one- and two- family structures • Golf courses 9.A.3.c Comparison of Uses Allowed cont... • Group came facifities {category 1), care unit -aursinghomes: assistedliving facilities; and continuing core retirement communities Category ff group core facilities and core units, only when the tenancy of the person or persons under core muldnot. - i. Constitute adirect threat to the h ealth or safety of other individuals,• H. Result in substantial physical damage to the propertyofothers: or iil. Result in the housing of individuals who are engaged in the current; illegal use of or addiction to acon trolled substance, as defined in section 802 of title 21, U.S. Code. • Recreational facilities intended to serve an existing ondlor developing residential community as represented by all of the prop ertiestf o tsfp arcels include d in an appro ved prelimin ary sub division p lot, air site developmen t plan. Model homes and model soles centers. Public schools without on agreement with Co Mier Coun ty 9.A.3.c 12 ➢ Jan 7, 2022 First NIM ➢ May 16, 2022 In -person meeting with NMH, FBC and Brookside neighbors ➢ May 17, 2022 Meeting with Commissioner Taylor and Brookside neighbors ➢ June 30, 2022 Conference call with NMH, FBC and Brookside neighbors ➢ On -going email exchanges and telephone calls between NMH and Dom Cotugno. FWC Dispatch (561) 357-4200 9.A.3.c i[� Letter Requesting IS/NW Zones for Rock Creek May 12, 2022 Chris D'Arco, Senior Environmental Specialist Collier County Coastal Zone Management Capital project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division 205' South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Rock Creekvessel speed restriction and slgnage Dear Chris: This flan represents Naples Marina Holdings, LLC ("NMH"), the owner of Brookside Marina. NMH is currently petitioning Collier County for a rezone (Pt20190001540) of the marina's privatelyowned submerged lands to facilitate an expansion of the number of dock slips at the a. Several owners of the residential properties in the Brookside subdivision to the north of the marina have advised us that vessels traveling in Rock Creek to and hornthe marina often teed safe speeds (idle or slow) thereby causing dangerous conditions to other vessels underway in Rock Creek as well as wake damage to the neighbors real and personal property. We note that the State of Florida currently recognizes Rock Creek as a "manatee/slow speed - minimum wake" (SS/MW) zone. However, there are no waterway regulatory markers advising boaters of this zone in Rock Creek. We have had extensive discussions with representelnes of the Florida FWCC, but, thus far, they have not been receptive W our requests to place SS/MW markers inside Rock Creek. For more than 40 years (since at least 1979), Collier County has designated all of Rock Creek as an idle speed/no wake (IS/NW) zone. Indeed, on October 30, 1979, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted Resolution 79-165 which designated "Rock Creek; from entrance of Brookside subdivision to Airport Road" (among other areas) as a restricted area "for the purpose of placing'No Wake -Idle Speed Onlf/ markers thereon.._" Two years later, the BCC piling/two signs for Rock Creek "for IS/NW zone remains co li ied today in nd 140-00.5(c)(5). Consolidated Waterways and Beaches ice, Rock Creek is not Included as an express request to include Rock Creek e than four decades. s designate "borting-restrkozd areas" circumstances In which a county may of Rack Creek's IS/NW designation '.45(1)(c)1, Florida Statutes, permits a within 300 feet of a bend in a narrow Attached to this letter is an aerial t. These two bends require vessels to ectively, where visibility Is obscured. C's approval W designate the areas n is willing to assist the County with mtutes, that the County apply to the s at or near the approximate locations client is willing to assist in this regard w signs. nd I'm happy to discuss this matter 9.A.3.c 9.A.3.c BCC's Executive Summary Re IS/NW Zones for Rock Creek ➢ N M H to ensure that access to/from Brookside residents' docks is not impeded and that existing docks will not be extended any further north into the basin ➢ FBC to install two cameras within marina basin ➢ FBC to explore cooperating with Mr. Harms to install a third camera at the entrance to Rock Creek ➢ FBC to send manned vessel to entrance of Rock Creek to monitor activity at anticipated high use times ➢ NMH to offer 10 additional cameras to property owners along Harbor Lane, first come/first serve ➢NMH to offer one wet slip to marine law enforcement vessel ➢ Liveaboards prohibited to moor at wet slips or anchor in basin ➢ Personal watercraft (e.g., Jet Skis, Sea-Doos, WaveRunners, etc.) prohibited to moor at wet slips ➢Buyer attended pre -application conference with County staff to discuss possible rezone of uplands (PL20220003629) ➢Proposal to rezone from C-4 to MPUD to allow for mixed use residential and commercial development of 40 plus units and a variety of commercial uses (retail, services, and office space). ➢ Seeking to achieve density of 16 DUs/A to allow approximately 46 units; commercial portion will be 20% of residential area. TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS • Before Whom? o Collier County Planning Commission o Board of County Commissioners • Where? o Collier County Government Headquarters 3299 Tamiami Trail East o 3rd Floor of Administration Building • When? o Not yet scheduled o Mailed Notice, Newspaper ads, Posted Sign 9.A.3.c QUESTIONS? Clay Brooker, ccbrooker@napleslaw.com Applicant's Agent (239) 261-9300 Tim Finn, timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov County Planner (239) 252-4312 20 9.A.3.c AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 04-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear, and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the subject property, a description of the proposed change, and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. The attached letter, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance (Signature o'pplicant's Agent) State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this " day of July, 2022 by Clay C. Brooker, who is personally known to me. 00 N ( '10 VJ J - (Signature of otary Public) (Notary Seal) Printed Name of Notary Notary Public State of Florida rY Chelsea Lochon My Commission Exp. 6/23/2026 GANIM Procedures/Affidavit Of Compliance - NIM Oct2OI O.Doc Packet Pg. 486 Serial Number Business 22-01414C GbWrver Published Weekly Naples, Collier County, Florida COUNTY OF COLLIER STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Ernesto Rendon who on oath says that he/she is Publisher's Representative of the Business Observer a weekly newspaper published at Naples, Collier County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Meeting Notice in the matter of Neighborhood Information Meeting on July 19, 2022 at 5:30 nm for Rezone of Brookside Marina Submerged Lands in the Court, was published in said newspaper by print in the issues of 7/l/2022 Affiant further says that the Business Observer complies with all legal requirements for publication in chapter 50, Florida Statutes. *This Notice was placed on the newspaper's website and floridapublicnotices.com on the same day the notice appeared in the newspaper. ,f Ernesto Rendon Sworn to and subscribed, and personally appeared by physical presence before me, 1 st day of July, 2022 A.D. by Ernesto Rendon who is personally known to me. C--L��,, Notary Public, State of Florida (SEAL) Donna Condon Comm.#HH015747 40 BOW ft Aaw Notary 9.A.3.c NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION NO, PL20190001540 - Rezone of Brookside Marina Submerged Lands In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code requirements, a neighborhood meeting hosted by Clay C. Brooker, Esq. of Che$y Passidomo, P.A., representing Naples Marina Holdings, I,LC (Applicant) will be held July 19, 2022, 5:30 pm, at the Collier County Growth Management Community Development Department, Room 6091610 (2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104). - The Applicant has submitted a formal application to Collier County seeking approval of a rezone of t4A acres of submerged lands generally located at 2015 Davis Boulevard (see map below) from RSF-4 (Residential Single Family) to C-4 (General Commercial), limited to water -dependent and water -related uses. The Applicant desires to install additional wet slips in the submerged lands and use them for marina purposes in conjunction with the adjacent uplands to the south (commonlykmown as the Brookside Marina). In general; the proposed rezone would limit the uses permitted within the submerged lands to marinas (and uses accessory to marinas), water transportation of passengers, water transportation services, and amusement and recreation services such as pleasure boat rentals and. operation of charter or party fishing boats. Liveaboards would be prohibited. WOO }} �' Pgpl'ERTY � - . Special accommodations will be made to allow for attendance virtually (via Zoom). If you prefer to attend virtually, please notify us via email at cnlach@napleslawcom prior to July 18, 2022, to allow us to send you login instructions. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact Clay Brooker by email: cebrooker@napleslaw.com or phone: 239-261-9300. Any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the gov- erning authority. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational pur- poses, it is not a public bearing. July 1, 2022 22-01414C Packet Pg. 487 9.A.3.c EDWARD K. CHEFFY Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer JOHN M. PASSIDOMO Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer LOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO Board Certified Appellate Practice Lawyer DAVID A. ZULIAN Board Certified Construction Lawyer CLAY C. BROOKER Board Certified City, County and Local Govermnent Lawyer CHEFFY PASSIDOMO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 821 Fifth Avenue South Naples, Florida 34102 Telephone: (239) 261-9300 www.napleslaw.com June 27, 2022 Subject: Neighborhood Information Meeting Rezone of Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Petition No. PL20190001540 Dear Property Owner: WILLIAM J. DEMPSE V Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer DEBBIE SINES CROCKETT RACHAEL S. LOUKONEN Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer BRIAN J. THANASIU Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer KIMBERLY D. SWANSON JONATHAN R. FITZMAURICE Of Counsel: GEORGE L. VARNADOE Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a request to rezone the submerged lands generally located at 2015 Davis Boulevard (see map below). The Applicant is seeking approval of a rezone of ±4.4 acres of submerged lands from RSF-4 (Residential Single Family) to C-4 (General Commercial), limited to water - dependent and water -related uses. The Applicant desires to install additional wet slips in the submerged lands and use them for marina purposes in conjunction with the adjacent uplands to the south (commonly known as the Brookside Marina). In general, the proposed rezone would limit the uses permitted within the submerged lands to marinas (and uses accessory to marinas), water transportation of passengers, water transportation services, and amusement and recreation services such as pleasure boat rentals and operation of charter or party fishing boats. Liveaboards would be prohibited. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) will be held to provide you an opportunity to become informed about the rezone request, ask any questions and express any concerns you may have. The Neighborhood Information Meeting with be held on July 19, 2022, 5:30 p.m., at the Collier County Growth Management Community Development Department, Room 609/610 located at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. N c L CU d .N Y O O ALL_ W 1 0 Iq CD 0 0 0 N J a ti N Packet Pg. 488 9.A.3.c Special accommodations will be made to allow for attendance virtually (via Zoom). Should you choose to participate via Zoom please notify us via email at cnlach@napleslaw.com prior to July 18, 2022, to allow us to send you login instructions. Please be sure to include your name and street address. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact Clay Brooker by email: ccbrooker@napleslaw.com or phone: 239-261-9300. 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. .N 0 0 Very truly yours, CO Iq 0 0 0 0 Clay C. Brooker, Esq. o Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. CN a CCB/cnl Enclosure " N fJ) fC 'i d �Sril AY4 REDE'VA ENT A ' s n.a.4 SUBJECT PROPER-rY ,�� Prny 91�i _w G Q t a m f1 t,a "-' ^-- fladn C M _ 1 4880-6745-1401, v. 2 Packet Pg. 489 y euiaeW apisMooa8 - OVSW006WZ-ld : V6LVZ) sleiaa;eW dnM3e8-uoi;e3ijddv- a;uawtpelIv :;uewt43ejjv Ci Q ai OoB�aoN0000°Oo�o�o�ooa00000000000000o0o�0aao "pO0oo"MOOo00oo0`S�o^ooa0000 O O O O O O O O a o O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 OO O O 000000 O 0 ((pp N N O fO O O O O O O O ((pO ��pp }} ((pp O N N m m m N m N QQ O m O N Q m N �p m m 0 0 0 V m m N m m O m m O O ((pp m O O m m N m m O m m N N m O m �O O N V N �p N O M M 4 OI m M N m n N m V W M M YI c o M O N m N m m 1 C') m N N m O N N O M N O �i O O m O N N O M O N uI p O O O N O N O O O O N N M O M O O N O pp O O O O M O O N M N N N M O O O M N O m m m m 0 0 0 m Y. m m m m m m m M m m m M m m m m m m m M m m m m m m M M C D m m m m m m m M M m m m m m m m G D M t 1 M O D m m M m m m m m G p m m ppppM OOaQ��m m hmmmmr�Np Nmmmmmmf0mm m mmmmmmm Ammmmmm fpMm mmm mmmm mmMmmmm�p m�flmmm mMMMMM �O�mM N N O N N N N N N N N n^ N N N N N n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n O N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N N n N N N N O O O O O r r N O V� 4 m I q < R m m V OIL M m m fp M l-, O^ n N Nq ���qIp �QQj (V q� NN I N4tmp NyQNNNQ N N ON N4 NMN N NN NN NOOOO N N m'0__ �o__�_�___��ssgoo_oaq�ggqo� V-- aa O yy V O e� T a O yy N N F NNt7NN�QCJMMMM MNZth2t�1 NNN M MMMNMMNMMNNMNNNNNNNN Nt:u.0 M N Mf�')c�'1 m R NM Cl) J J J J J d' J J J U J J J J J J J J O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J y LLLL LLO LLLL LL LL LL Z ZIL IL IL IL IL�LLLLLLLL�LLLLLLLLLLZ lL li 1L IL {t IL LL LL LLLL LL LLLL LL LLLLLLLL LLLL LLIL IL IL LLLLLLLL. IL LL..... LLLLLLLL �. w w w Z w w w w w a O w w w w w❑ w w Q w z w w w w w O w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O w w w w w w 11' W W W w w w w w C J J J w J J F J J J Q J J J J J Z J J= J❑ J J J J J Y J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Q J J J J J J U U U U U J J J J } zz vaaaaazzzawaaraaa z zZa Wzzzzzmz zzzz zzzzzzZZzzzzzzzUzzzzzz>>>>z>zazzazazz Uz zzUzzzzzz a Te ca o � � a U �4 O W Z 4-4 a OU O U m c N W 4 m 10 2 m W 0 c � m G 0 CL E O O J J z Z fn W❑ N m tv n {y� off Z {Z. Z g Z M J Z� 22 7 OUa q Q > d l p� W S O Q Q Qpp� t p W a Q s rU p 7 a f7 mz mm Qm Of 7 Y �i�O mQ QZ p8U Z pp� {{OJyp S 51) Qm S �1 QOS Q �p�p 2 W S C' U U fall 0, N= YI O tOq v lb N N N CAS s S fmnO v J ul e�p O U 7 L W W m¢ p M qFq,, Q g d �� mZZ m <~O C (7 UOZ. WQW W w w Z _ w MR w w w C wm ¢}'g?a�zo W�zzwWZW zmSzazZ❑zp3WZz?�z? za Zvi azZ❑zSzzzofnzJZZ>?�"i �w W Z(q UmOOg US�Tj� > Z >J JJ W W{i1 yy +Q yma j}mp tllRC 20a0>ZOOY p�yCyCma(Y W KKammORYCOOFF}O�g a'-a'JmYgmIrKYCJ�>a'N�Z W W W ❑❑ V14 a V)`�a❑0m W mmZo mOU W a� W W OV1mm Ozm ZOm ❑Qm �iiN LLi fjjOmytmOJW'TQm QJQJ ODUUQQJJYO �W xxOZO¢¢xe�¢a� ¢yr�. Oz iKQ W ZafQrz¢�aZfn W KJ iJLQwQzW7a's`CTrijaCa'Z¢m¢ 0: Sa: 7 �a'Gw r-zy�zWyZy��z=JJ`b'❑ .E — UOUyx 2 ❑2 xf ZU' 2S mJ'B W-}ul.N2❑2S Vl }22 W mf=/16.2m$Z xm=S 402 2 W LLQUW »>gODUmZ c rpm$ pn �yo p�7Q��ppzzf`zmpNp�mm�jWv �0Or�2�nSpn�o C�� popp Nv> m oQW 22 OwpwowpJpaJaa z OMidONemN fr�N <�K NTYIDS� N UhNNZr g�2 MrN V NNaNmf71 [s1 N(/7NN N�i2 N�QQaOD OJ W Omf Ta a ❑ C � N Cm J W -j N r2 _ U. W F- m W W z F m N _w Zz 2 O D U U U U W 2 E (f/p�] F Vl O 7 w~ J Q Z O J J J J J m w t' J ZUl a'fY 2C� J i A d J� qqJm U ~> F-Z }> FO aitl O r W J J JfA W Oi:J C:OC�J J w°ac2i Z� U 33wW �� c1LLw �fn� a fn fn� 2Ozzzzz G a W z C Z m0 2 2 W w 2❑ z zZz xy 2a�� w��°°�J>�n>> UwW°� wJ2Uaxo❑5o'❑ `j. c 3 Z Z C O f A❑ W— (Y 2 S a U J O W JJJJJ ❑❑ Q - Z W W H W W ! R 2 1 2� a J ❑ m z z V-U zz3 w ❑JJO Q JJOW Jwz �02p x z� OU(9J gJJF" OOOOO W J Ja. 2�jj ;gF!W+t�yy QY K 2 C7 U' Zy W fY`�Z z0 JZaaJ W Z-zgxU}�Qagz <mo W LL�zHfAy-QQx2222 W w'o d Om(n oa>F?Nm Z J W'._ J m Z J} W W ~YJJYD W fy,-'Qtr l�U W N W C m Q a m w a �%a U Q H O K U Z g JQ= Q Q _ _ Q¢ m ❑ S O Z z J> U R W Lau- QQQ7g,¢ U OfY>J to -(/} a •5• •� U�> W Y❑a UU 2❑`❑nU Z w a, U W r pU QJ W T2< J W Qm < r2 � LL C O > a' z ¢Q �[Y(py,],)OGQQUx= z� O WW z �(7Z�� J} U 0❑�a _ 9 OMMN W OoY a�� W JJ?zZOa'a'-62WWU)000 W a 0 �- A W w LU to ZQmY W mo:xr��zC7 W tnU W m�a(Y J J J J J J J JvOI W Om W (Y7 Q�QUU2pJQ pJp OO8NO:�a uWaS50 J 1, (7 2 ..=!ZZ_OO Z QST� a'UH Q�� �j ❑az❑rZN a a a a a a fl a Qa 3 gw �mmmmUU UU[J UUUUUU❑0❑ OOO SwLLm C7 U' C7 LuwSC7 C7 CC U' SS mYYY g g22f Yg�zzZzzzz2 ZO U M Q euiaew apisNooa8 - OVS 0006WZld : b6LbZ) slepa;ew do)joe8-uoijeoijddv - a juGwtj3ejjv :;u8wg3ejjv �pO7�ppp77��� pQO OQ O [ O[��I O O O p Op O O O O p Op O O O O p Op O O O O O O O O S S S oo 000000000 �p O(p ON O O O O O V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 �Op ac 0 0 0 N GO OD M ONiM amD<N�ImpRN�O V Pm]fOrOS V tOONMI, ONmf000NNCN0 (NOOOOOt�O��0000N�00�8ONNO (O OD 00 M aim m mmmMa�aOmmOD m00MmtOmm m mmmm mmmmmm MmmMOG maDm mm m mmmmm mm MM mmm W ((pp pppp mmmmmmm W W I� W mmmmMO�m (D Ql mmmMmm0l Of MMm�p rnm W m W mm((ppMm m mO1m ml�I�a O O N N N N n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N n N N N N O N N N O O N^ N N O N N N N N h O N N N N N N .N- N M MNN N40, QQ fV ^nNN mom q Ism � N NN ON N p ;:N N NN N QQ tV fV N N N N N Q O N OD O ��11ggYiqill�$MYigYTi����gTqNq�qqqq�giliYg���T���� OOxXfO� o$$$$aa a rnovNrn QQ{{Y{ m(pmQQ J J�-.-��M.-�-� �' _ OO Q O0 0000O_00 0O_ Ogg LL LL V v d a v n 9 9 9y O a Z~ "-� m m v O C V a Q > e} Q V a� a V c{ aa O yy V< a pp NcM MMMMMMM MZmC1=O LL¢Z j MMMMMM a:M [7 M[7> Mt'�M MMMMM M M�co MNjO U. W W LL LL LL LL LL IJL Z LL U. LL LL Y J LL V Z O 3 J J J J J J J J J J J J J¢ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J }} Q 5O� OLL LL LL LL LL IL U. LL LE LL w U. U. w U. LL LL LL LL W wLLLLLLw W LLLLLLLLOO rnggVi fn 41 Ul Vi Vi Z (n UJ fn Ui0 (�(gaZa W(Ji fn fn V)fnfnfnw V1 NVJ w w In z0IN fn fnw w w!n!n (n fn fn fn w to fn fn N N co zz J I- F J J J J J J O J J J J}¢ W- a Z z Q J J J J J J J U J W J J J J w J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J JI IJ O O ammaaaaaamaaaa-7a3z 4 aaaaaaazaaaaaa amammmmmmammmmmmaamaww aooa¢aaaaXaaQawxawa5Z)°aaaaaaQ-Q¢aaa¢<¢¢aaaa¢Q¢aaaaaaQQ¢¢¢oo zLLLLzzzzzzxzzzzzOzzmai_gzzzzzzz3zzzzzz¢zzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ22 p p J J OS z ww Y Y nnn N N N � W x r- ,� u00,1 3 2 O MO M � m a 2 N m ¢ 7 z y w N W } O x z J } O xxj 0 w ° a m m K ww OO fp Vl as m mm UU J J J J J J Q W yO yO_ QJ Z ° J z m_�ll z W W W W 2 J �¢z Q `'( Z ZZW 22 ZyOlyNNxZwU' Y $OC7U' °Z x�¢ z�mmz�3�a�z?? �az3°zv~im°z J gZ�? SSc�mJ F77� U az-wzzzwJzzU_ F- ZZ } VJw Ka'F'w F JK a.O° W W aZ� Jgu om Zg=0052 Qwo OJsQ5aJ°ZJJw WNWm 2 7007�.�. �7.L wa g_j �Ow(] m ° Z J Nw' OlgU7 (¢1m m IaHZu+�++¢ H'HOO � �O�m OG W >z J ZZ QU JQQ QQ C70 QaQ'KQOZ2WZ > H O J �JJ ,_ZZ- mJJmw ix OI` z2WQyx U'�2W,Jf7A2XS2mmm2m( z.W_1 a1 7� KzgzOaQ Op a77 m w ra } Y O hl. a w axWmWWxmmxxgoogx W W O �Q pp �Oyl1r,{r`�pg opp ppOM MOl� m lg Omhppp �Np (pp �{Op Ny�xhm OM M m�yM �� 8 mm��yyS�j000601 G (�j {�mOh m07�Ny mm�O Q��yyQQQOi Of ON�CD�OI W ��Q{NQSI�fr iO Z W W V V N� mdd QzO Na6.NNN N N� a N{h.NtOG�rneN MNNNar W nnYN ON ����> VJ V1N�� N Z^ 8N Ucn nNI InLU W U ZQ 2- F-J 2m7 7OO > J fog W K ° L' z y rz> za¢ ` o z 5 W H oLL a> ¢ °� 3 .J7, Jx w awUm WZ>bJ�Zm � ° ¢ wx x w �jymU) UO J J > �� �ww } w}gz pOa>'}m40. w �g77-j7 LLm�w } w<aza Z Z W xa' W a mg J m_j 22LL UU N lL. U J LL2 44 (/d^�Z U� a _ LL¢¢��mF } ZW_ Zz a�yWyW h- LL JJNg Q�� w J mm- W W QZ g2 LL yN Z =O}LLY a_''-'�f W ~Uym �V1 QaQ Ja '2_gw� W JJO C_JJ Z 2Oce,2wz,mgu.y q F �wI-¢aka ¢ }}U�ZUOO Al, w J C LL Q OZ�oJ >27m y� °,g 77°x °UU� W a7U4 a� U ZrxW WZ2D,OK°gg S�S�dZ~� W Y OOW U3mgg>a OwC7 C7 WU' U°?LLOJF iX Q JJ R20 UfAJ Y '� a LLO V W S- W Z U � W �� J WIy� QQyy � QQ �° _ �! > Z- Q'Fm g JrrJ O:.�Lix7a J V) NmCxU]ZgJIyyw�J W Q Oy5 ILO LLLL W a QOzZZ - ZOa O W Z m H Zz 2�O1'iN J�Qj �`�U�Z Z NxU7� W O {{, ZZUO W a� W UO�Q7 zxKHO 9=22i S(Jaxz w W S-g - 9 J J x X ¢ W W a'7 CSC a' 1�JUJOOa W �(AJ _J �7 QJ QrL qZ Qm xx o9`Saaaaw10. ¢a0. wwmwKmxxfa/Jfa/7fU/JIfALNfA(q�Nt~/14~71�/J^t~pH �Fx7�lSSSyS3 >02 OIL OIL JZ DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D I I 9.A.3.c I JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT Brookside Marina Zoning Application (Submerged Lands) (Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida) September 23, 2022 County TIS Review Fees TIS Methodology Review Fee = $500. 00 (previously paid) IS6We S � Reyiew Fee _ e r cnn nn TIS (Minor Study) Review Fee =SO.00 Prepared by: JMB TRANSPORTATION ENOINEERINS, INC. 471 1 7TH AVENUE SW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 1 9 CERTIFICATE OF AUTH❑RIZATI❑N No. 27830 (PROJECT NO. 200 1 1 G) ,.TAMES aD—Signed by: NES Al, .4"� �— E519D679ME47F... � ,�, Na 43860 - i raT - ��� 20 ZZ E3AN 'R D .' EN����.�'� Packet Pg. 492 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D 9.A.3.c TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 2 Methodology 2 Scope of Project 3 Table A - Proposed Development 3 Figure 1 - Project Location & E+C Road Classification 3.1 Project Generated Traffic 4 Table B - Net New Trips Generated 4 Table 1 - Proposed Land Use Trip Generation Computations 4.1 Existing + Committed Road Network 5 Project Traffic Distribution 5 Area of Significant Impact 5 Figure 2 - Project Traffic Distribution 5.1 Table 2 - Area of Impact/Road Classification 5.2 2021 thru 2024 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions 6 Table 3 - 2021 & 2024 Link Volumes 6.1 Table 4 - 2024 Link Volumes/Capacity Analysis 6.2 Packet Pg. 493 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D 9.A.3.c Conclusions The Applicant is proposing to rezone the submerged lands of Brookside Marina in order to increase the number of wet slips from 39 to 112 wet slips. Based upon the findings of this report, it was determined that the proposed rezoning will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding road network. It was verified that all roadways, within the project's area of impact, currently have a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the additional site -generated traffic associated with the net increase of 73 wet slips for Brookside N Marina. As determined, the road network will continue to operate at acceptable levels of W service for the foreseeable future and the project will not create any off -site transportation L deficiencies that need to be mitigated. Site Access Related Improvements Y The site currently has one (1) full access on Davis Boulevard, which will remain intact. $ Any site access improvements that may be required will be coordinated with the m` applicable governmental entity, which in this case is the Florida Department of c Transportation. 0 0 0 rn Methodology 0 N a On January 31, 2020, a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) Methodology Report was submitted to the office of Collier County Transportation Planning Department. The 1- ti $500.00 methodology meeting fee will be paid at the time of submitting the zoning N amendment application. Note, the TIS reflects changes from the established methodology as follows: For determining site -generated trips, the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition was used vs. the 10'' Edition. 2. The TIS is based upon rezoning the project's submerged lands to increase the number of wet slips. All other land use entitlements will remain the same. 3. The 2022 Collier County AUIR report was used vs. earlier versions. 4. The project now generates less than 50 new peak hour trips and therefore is a "small- scale" study vs. a minor study. 2 Packet Pg. 494 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D 9.A.3.c Scope of Project Brookside Marina is an existing and on -going marina/commercial enterprise, consisting of both uplands and submerged lands, located at 1949, 2015 & 2025 Davis Boulevard within Collier County, Florida. The property was previously developed with commercial/retail, .restaurant and marina -related land uses. The various upland uses were established and will remain unchanged, except for the proposed increase in wet slips for the marina use. It should be noted that at its peak, the marina had a total of 97 dry slips installed on the uplands and a total of 137 wet slips were installed in the submerged lands. However, many of the wet slips were demolished/removed in 2013. Today, the marina's current wet slip count is 39, and its current dry slip count is zero (0). Vehicular ingress/egress for Brookside Marina was previously established via one (1) full median opening on Davis Boulevard, which will remain intact. The Applicant is rezoning the northern portion (submerged lands) in order to increase the number of marina wet slips froze. 39 wet slips to 112 wet slips. All other land use entitlements will remain the same. Table A Existing vs. Proposed Land Use Existing Proposed Land Uses Size/Capacity Size/Capacity Net Difference Marina -Related Uses 39 Wet Slips 112 Wet Slips + 73 Wet Slips 0 Dry Slips 0 Dry Slips + 0 Dry Slips N c as .N 0 0 L m 0 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a CD ti Iq Packet Pg. 495 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D 9.A.3.c IOf CI d � I I a I I Lon boat Drive I �{ +� Clipper Way Mercantile Avenue ` Outrigger Lane v o I hmann glvd I Progress o ue +r Isc I Horseshoe Or N. I 3 n ■l o Domestic � nue m I Horseshoe Or S. 0 0 1 m ' I Enterprise Ave Enterprise nue — I NORTH No s Airport Exchange Avi nue E s a � U v Propapect Ave Radio Road n 91 — — — — ---- 1-------- Noples Airport I Ave I Davis Boulevard ` Glades Blvd y 4I E LEGEND 6—LANE ARTERIAL 4—LANE ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR — — — — — 2—LANE ARTERIAL 2—LANE COLLECTOR/LOCAL RAIL ROAD %MTRANSIPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. Brookside Marina August 24, 2021 I Harrison Rdm .`Tra E 0 L 0 oL Project Location & Roadway Classification FIGURE 1 N ca C d to O O m O O O O 0 N J a rn ti N 3.1 Packet Pg. 496 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D 9.A.3.c Project Generated Traffic Traffic that can be expected to be generated by the project was estimated based upon the guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, l lt' Edition. That is, historical traffic data collected at similar land uses was relied upon in estimating the project's traffic. It was concluded that land use code Marina (LUC 420) was most appropriate in estimating the existing and the proposed marina - generated trips. In order to determine the project's net new traffic, the estimated trips for the existing land use were subtracted from the estimated total trips for the proposed land use. That is, Proposed Development Trips less Existing Development Trips = Net New Trips Table 1 provides a detail of the estimated total trips for the existing land use and for the proposed land use. Table B provides a summary of the results from Table 1. Table B Net New Trips Generated (Proposed Trips Less Existing Trips) Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use (ADT) (vph) (vph) Existing Marina 94 3 8 (39 Wet Slips) Proposed Marina 270 8 24 (112 Wet Slips) Net New Trips 176 5 16 The report concludes that the project will generate less than 50 net new trip ends during the weekday highest peak hour. As such, the report investigates the traffic impacts associated with the project based upon the criteria set forth by the Collier County Government's Traffic Impact Statement Guidelines for developments generating "less than 50 trips", which is defined as a small-scale study. 4 N �L as .N 0 0 L m 0 0 0 0 o� 0 N J a CD ti Iq N Packet Pg. 497 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D 9.A.3.c EXISTING LAND USE Land Use Code Land Use Description 420 Marina TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS Brookside Marina Build Schedule 39 Berths Land Use Trip Generation Equation Code Trip Period (Based upon S.F.) Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit LUC 420 Daily Traffic (ADT) = T= 2.41(X) = 94 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 0.07(X) = 3 vph 1 / 2 vph 33% Enter/ 67% Exit = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 0.21(X) = 8 vph 5 / 3 vph 60% Enter/ 40% Exit = PROPOSED LAND USE Land Use Code Land Use Description 420 Marina Build Schedule 112 Berths Land Use Trip Generation Equation Code Trip Period (Based upon S.F.) Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit LUC 420 Daily Traffic (ADT) = T= 2.41(X) = 270 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 0.07(X) = 8 vph 3 / 5 vph 33% Enter/ 67% Exit = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 0.21(X) = 24 vph 14 / 10 vph 60% Enter/ 40% Exit = PROPOSED LAND USE TOTALS Daily Traffic (ADT) = 176 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = 5 vph 2 / 3 vph PM Peak Hour (vph) = 16 vph 9 / 7 vph Packet Pg. 498 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D 9.A.3.c Existing + Committed Road Network Figure l and Table 2 provide a detail of the surrounding E + C roadways. Table 2 also depicts the nearby roadways respective minimum level of service performance standards and capacity. N W Project Generated Traffic Distribution The project's net new traffic was distributed to the surrounding road network based upon i logical means of ingress/egress, current and future traffic patterns in the area, population densities, competing businesses, as well as growth trends for the surrounding areas. Table 2 and Figure 2 provide a detail of the traffic distributions to the adjacent road network as Y a percentage of trips generated. Table 2 and Figure 3 depict the project traffic $ L assignments by volume. m 0 0 CD Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2%, 2% and N 3% criteria (i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of a service capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2 describes the project's net new traffic distributions and the level of impact on the CD °- surrounding roadways. Roads that were identified as being within the project's area of N impact are shown in Table 2. v, Packet Pg. 499 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D 9.A.3.c I a:I I rn � I I a I ¢ 1 I iuff ive Mercantile Avenue 1 e a a I o o I �sev'r, nn lawd Progress us w F r N. �o o I Domestic � nuer S. 4 N mer rise Ave Enterprise , nue —iN06 oopAirport Exchange Av nue E I H.T.S. r3 1 I Propspect Ave I Radio Road Naples Airport I „ EsteX Ave 3 o LO Og m 1, 30% 4-LolLwDavis Boulevarc oN m o` LEGEND C!� PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT 4111L.7TRANSP❑RTATI❑N ENGINEERING, INr,. Brookside Marina 57. Glades Blvd I\ I Harrison Rdv a E 0 v� ? c � L L a v m Project -Generated I Traffic Distribution FIGURE 2 ust 24, 2021 tom. I Packet Pg. 500 ,Envelope ID: mE84 e,«s«D2-ss ae mo 2 2 '0 O 000 O0 0 00 k2 2 2 2= Z Z 2 2 / � C q / q o ? E f MI6 e 0 0 n 6 00 TO M / //# 2 ƒ/ - � w w w m co co m �¢ § A z (0« w z k k CL z \ S f q E R o te n- o w � I 0 z Je qw u u � � 7�¥=M o nc o na UL 0# y o 0 0 / R 7 E 2% e a 6 a a q q LU IL nr,- N§ g& I'D ■0 00000J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 \\\ \ qq 0% U � � a Y\ O w = w w o w && 2 0 2 ? 2 2 2 / d IT CDI- f a / 0 \ D 2 ' . « _# # \ 0 CO , - L A § & � \ « / o \ f > G 0 rh ƒ .0 -a} ca co< % \ j § \ a cq¥ o o g ƒ 4 g n R 2§ § G § 0 iL 2 0: V ) & L - / \ 0. a) \ e 0 k § 0 2 g * a a- a 2 � w S.z DocuSign Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D 9.A.3.c 2022 thru 2024 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2022 thru 2024 project build -out traffic conditions, two forecasting methods were used. The first traffic forecasting method was the County's traffic count data was adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions, peak direction, and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour/peak direction and annual growth rates were derived from the 2022 Collier County AUIR Report. Using the annual growth rate, the 2024 background traffic conditions were determined, which are depicted in Table I The second traffic forecasting method was to add the vested trips (trip bank) identified in the 2022 AUIR report to the adjusted peak season, peak hour and peak direction traffic Y counts. The vested trips "+" 2024 background traffic volumes are depicted in Table 3. $ ML W The greater of the two values produced by the two forecasting procedures was then c considered to reflect the 2024 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic ,to was then added to the background traffic. Table 4 provides a summary of the 2022 thru CD 2024 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining availableCD capacity. As shown, all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the N County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build -out. a CD ti Iq N b Packet Pg. 502 n Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D M euuew apis)Iooa8 - 017S 0006WZ�d : b6L-PZ) sleiia;ew do)joe8-uoi}eoijddV - a }uawtJoeliv :;uauayoe;;y Q Q � a Y V f0 a u Z m a sn o o c N S m ° o d c`Vo ! y i V Cf 'r N IL 41 ,y j ' r a S4 to a m 4 V/ 0 w W 7 C t`ry N i s G�1 QI J .cam a �' err O 4�. Y m � o a m Z Q. J L w 0 o 0 QDlo ¢ 0 0 Q Ur N N N M J � � < aI w w w aO H N c o o- G a L - - N � r N O N IG -,� O N N M n Envelope ID: ECE84E61-0326-44D2-8099-C37D91BB250D M O = 0 N1 o v Y . OI V U O Q N •3 A fa -� m a x IL c 0 g N O x tj N N O u 0 0 0 m d �c > n. L_ � 9 L C] O G N y o. N N L 7 � O L 0 p `v y a a r m a Y c; al w uU Q a o Z z a �_a 0 al w 3 IL U D L _ .O Y Y f"I (D aan. n c a � o c � J 0 O N d i a%� p1 O D U d W N lC Y J —� � a a m m z m�ofwww F J � 0 c r r N � 0 Q a i a m OU U C J � O a N N w v . v v 0) > Y O � � m 6.2, 9.A.3.c COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS C- INC. CECI Group Services Coastal and Marine Engineering Environmental and Geological Services Land and Marine Survey and Mapping Website: www.coastalengineering.com RSF-4 PARCEL BROOKSIDE MARINA LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW '/4) OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, RUN N89042'44" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 662.10 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF MARNICK CORNER, A SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGE 81 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N00019'57"W 242.84 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THOSE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2, PAGE 454 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE N00019'57"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 427.26 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (SW '/4) OF SAID SECTION 2 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF BROOKSIDE SUBDIVISION UNIT NO. 3 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 88 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N89035'48"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 892.16 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE TWENTY (20) FEET WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BROOKSIDE DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S00014'14"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 153.66 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THOSE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4903, PAGE 2029 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S89024'05"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 688.28 FEET; THENCE S00026'09"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 270.96 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2, PAGE 454; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LANDS S89030'12"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBES APPROXIMATELY 193,061 SQUARE FEET OR 4.43 ACRES OF LAND. BEARINGS RELATIVE TO NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, FLORIDA EAST ZONE. 28421 Bonita Crossings Blvd., Bonita Springs, FL 34135 1211 North Range Ave., Suite E, Denham Springs, LA 70726 Phone (239) 643-2324 • Fax (239) 643-1143 Phone (225) 523-7403 E-mail: info(a_,cecifl.com SERVING COASTAL COMMUNITIES SINCE 1977 Packet Pg. 505 euiJeW apis)Iooa8 - O-PS WOMOZ1d : ti6LtiZ) sleije;eW dnj3e8-uoi;eoijddV - 8 ;uewt4oe;;V :;uewLjoe;;d U M d o ,,,,,,,,,, ............... ♦,,,,,,,,,. .,.....,\\\\\\ .............I C a IN ... ........IN F., ....... IN ............. W 4 :: ", I I .............. .. ,..., .......... aIN I:: "I Coo :::::::::; ......... W .......... .......... ..,........ a, ........, .,....,.. ........, ............... ........ �,....... aapunog.t�iadoad ............., y..................................... ............., o c�. ........• O ...... ...... a ............., ........; ...... ......., ............... . .. .....• Y� VJ ...... .......� U ............., ,.............. .�........• L ....., a� ....... C •�.. ...., l Q \ a ............... ... .,,.` p ....., J .,.` o, \ .............. .�.....• ,..... .,. .....IN ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .....,,.• O O O ,. .. O W ...............................I ...................• .............. ............. C .............. ,............. .............. W //nMaas 6uijsix3 .............. .............. I IN ............ W N .......... »»»» hnnnnna 1fuadni-I L •O A0 W o 0 II Lij O E Z� Q Q a M � M W N �� LC tz O J > M N I ac, U N m 3�0 N N = 06 A#*140l 9.A.3.c COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department Development Review Division Environmental Planning Section November 02, 2018 N c� Johanna Shifflette L 1938 Hill Avenue Fort Myers, FL 33901 .N 0 RE: Brookside Marina (PL20180002738) 0 m Collier County Environmental Planning section has reviewed your request for compliance with the le Collier County Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) as it pertains to the Brookside Marina Project located at In 0 2025 Davis Blvd Naples, FL. o rn Project Summary: Per the proposed site plan submitted, the applicant, is proposing to construct 73 new J wetslips (6 finger piers, 3 floating docks and an aluminum ramp). a CD Consistency Review: Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.05.02.B. states that ti Iq developments will be reviewed for consistency with the MPP and the following determinations were made. w Vegetation Impact: An analysis of shoreline mangrove vegetation was provided by Hans Wilson, and Associates. Based upon the existing and proposed dock site plan, no impacts of the shoreline vegetation are proposed. As a result of the dredging, no seagrasses are present within the marina basin. Overall this gives a "No Marine Impact" result to Marine Habitat under the Marina Siting Criteria of the MPP (pg 79). For shoreline vegetation such as mangroves, no impact is defined as no greater than 5% of the native marine habitat is disturbed. For sea grasses, no impact means that no more than 100 square feet of sea grasses can be impacted. Depth: The proposal indicated there will be adequate water depth in the immediate vicinity of the project to the marked navigation channel. Current depth of the area is -5 ft MLW. The Brookside Marina basin has been dredged though the issuance of FDEP permit no. 11-0173190-001 to conduct maintenance dredging of marina basin to bring mooring depths to -5 ft. MWL. The MPP states adequate water depths to be greater than -4 ft. MLW (pg 72 of the MPP). A dredging permit has been obtained, which includes all of the marina basin. The dredging was completed on November 24, 2017. An as built survey was conducted by Turrell, Hall & Associates on November 30, 2017 verifying -5 Feet MLW had been reached within the marina basin. Manatee Deaths: Between January 1974 and November 2018, 138 manatees have died associated with watercraft -related injuries in Collier County waters. Eighteen (18) manatees have died within a five -mile radius of the project location from watercraft -related causes. This number represents approximately 9% of all watercraft -related deaths in the county. Therefore, manatee use is not considered to be high. Zoning Division . 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Packet Pg. 507 9.A.3.c In summary, the above information results in No Marine Impact, water depth at -5 feet MWL, and Not High manatee use, resulting in a Preferred ranking under the MPP. Under Preferred Ranking, new boat slip density would be allowed at 18 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. The application states there is 1,732 feet of shoreline, which would equate to 311.7 slips allowed. There are 39 existing wet slips and 25 dry slips. The applicant is proposing 73 new slips for a total of 137 slips, which is under the 311.7 limit (1,732 linear ft /100 x 18 slips). Therefore, it appears the project proposal is consistent with the MPP. However, during final construction plan (Site Development Plan) review, these findings may change based on the information submitted at that time. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252-2548. Sincerely, Craig Brown Senior Environmental Specialist, Environmental Plan Review Development Review Division. N ca c m .N 0 0 L m 0 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a CD ti Iq 54 Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive e Naples, FL 34104 e 239-252-2400 Packet Pg. 508 9.A.3.c Brookside Marina Submerged Lands Rezone (P L20190001540) Native Vegetation Evaluation (9-13-21) The property is primarily submerged lands. The only existing native vegetation on -site is an isolated, small area of mangrove trees rooted in wetlands at the southeast corner of the property. No site plan is required by the County for this rezone application, so no preserve area has been identified. However, if the County determines that a native vegetation preserve area is required under these circumstances, 10 percent of these mangrove wetlands will be so designated, thereby complying with LDC section 3.05.07.13.1. In this regard, please note that mangrove trimming and alteration is exempt from the County's native vegetation preservation requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.05.02.E. Accordingly, trimming and alteration of the existing mangroves will be governed by the State pursuant to the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act, Sections 403.9321 through 403.9333, Florida Statutes. Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 509 9.A.3.c o' NPLFs; �0 X � ONTHE GULF =: J' �_••// UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 295 RIVERSIDE CIRCLE • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 TELEPHONE (239) 213-5051 • UTILITIESFORMS@NAPLESGOV.COM September 7, 2022 Ms. Stephanie Caldwell Greensite Engineering, Inc. 13300-56 South Cleveland Ave #611 Fort Myers, FL 33907 Steph@greensite-eng.com Subject: Potable Water Service Availability for 1949 & 2025 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 Folio #00386120002, 00386080003, and 00386200003 — submerged parcels Dear Ms. Caldwell: In response to the request for a Letter of Availability for potable water service (domestic and /or irrigation use) for the proposed development received via email on August 31, 2022, this office has reviewed the subject site for available potable water service. Based on the referenced information and review, this office confirms the following: 1. The subject property is located within the City of Naples potable water service area. 2. The City of Naples has adequate treatment plant capacity for the proposed project. 3. The proposed improvements must meet current City of Naples Utilities Standards and must be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval. 4. Should the scope of proposed project change to impact City utility services, the project's engineer of record shall remain responsible to contact the City for appropriate reviews and analysis. This letter does not imply or guarantee that adequate potable water distribution main facilities of sufficient size and capacity exist at the property; such utilities as may be needed for new site development shall remain the developer's responsibility to design, permit and construct. Based on the above, this office has no objections to this project subject to appropriate reviews by all utility service providers (including the City of Naples), Collier County, and the Fire District. Should you have any questions or require any additional information or action from this office, please do not hesitate to call this office at (239) 213-5051 or e-mail dmking@naplesgov.com. N cC C �L C� C m .N 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a CD ti Iq 54 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 510 9.A.3.c Sincerely, Denise King Utilities Permit Coordinator Cc: Bob Middleton, Utilities Director Michelle Baines, P.E., Deputy Utilities Director David Banter, Utilities Inspector m .N 0 0 ML W 0 r 0 0 0 r N J a Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 511 eulaeW OWSM00a8 - OVGW006W-1d VMT) slepa;eW dnj3e8-uol;e3llddV - 8;uewt43e11V :1u8wt43e11V N raga m.o7sD�zvf r g r 3a wowl swanm SNOUAUDS3030H313XS � aj �. �aswwarwavrs .wowwn S1NRI i MNEM SUN nm VNP" S31dM �u�wa iv a too �d BROOKSIDE DRIVE 60' RIGHT OF WAY - -- --- --- -- Z O �j 99'£9L 3.14.til.00S d J§ cai �a O w Y vs� W o acr Zs a p �w r ° wg� U > W Sao W � J p to p it fi LL Q = O� = O Q L) z o g_ w ¢ s w J�o w -j a w 7 S Rill N aC Q z' §w a. £ Ir U. Fao O fQZv OOD ww i rn r 00'OLV 3.LL.90.00S All i r i �a 11; coa� � �p ao Z (0 5; Q d W LL W Q W W ��o a N ALL in � —� H- ¢ N Cl)¢ O o N� Oa o^� >� N D z U iv 00 O CD :n O 01 1 1 go N a Z S� 96'OLZ 3.60.9Z. N .96'OLZ M.60.9Z.00S $ p .9910Z M.Z9.ZL.00N Ln N O Z 0 Z j uq§uuq�JJu i YII � 101 -0 LL a m 4 iii y� co 0 M it a � o F CD z �F mod .9Z'LZb M.L9.6L.00N fL "'ZbZ M.L9.6L.00N z on i 'Z ., w �< R p r$ _° g z Ni Zmi co: W o a4 Z Fa (01 �za wu Z mrY wi �Z» �O4 Nza Zw O 'Qj 0$00 Q Y�y'' U�'e`.' WQ p�p� Ni LLma7 520 I QY Cr7a WO �i O its l--rvm �Zm A3 M z5m I Zi n Q I LL' I r: u eulJeW OWS3100JI3 - 01790006W-ld : iV6LVZ) slepoleyy dnj3e8-uoije3ijddV - El ju9wt43ejjV:juawLj3ejjV �AI�Kl �GISNOMJO co Q� U) 0 ry LLI 0 m C/) 71"61 I H all m BUIJBW OPISAOOJS - OMOOMOZ-1d : 'PUK) slepejeW dnj3e8-uoijeoijddv - a juewt43ejjv:juGwLj3qjv 11 �HOIU3sn iN3u� J uno M, �SN ONINOZ 3AIma 3aismooms N �2yw z 1 0 'N N �2 z sum % x�ss w 0 LU 6j =� zaxs LLzW 0 ca 0 cn 0 w W O. w 5� O WXW 0 LiBSn IN3a8no gi " 1113%-�nleJo_ ONINOZI 0. ---------------- 00 OLV 3.1L.90.005 ------------------- - ------ ----- ---- --- ------------- 0 ---------- x 5Z 'IT m R g 0 0 C) j 0 w w� z wq x z. No --------------------- -W z W. -7-7-77-TTT,7-7-7777777-UTT7- 0.. w FP x-------------- 6i .00 N - - -------------- z 0 0 z. N 0. Wa z w z a --- - ----- -- 0 of LL < < Z < LLJ W I W, ' C/) < zo Z, -z' -z < LU 0 0 w z z�- — ------------------------------- — ----- — - ------------------------------ --- - --- --------- 5 ------- Tm�� I . ui Se 1310H 3S 21 - ------ ......... k ... �X , ,nIN3U� no w w "ZI n�n" ONINOZ C—) 0 z z 0 rc 2J3jjf18tl3dA1 Al 0 of (.) 9.A.3.d 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 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 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED Clay C. Brooker WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER E0190001540 DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER 821 5th Ave S SIGNATURE APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Clay C. Brooker NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Naples, Florida 34102 CITY, STATE ZIP The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 19 day of April , 2023, by Clay C. Brooker, personally known to me or who p o uced A as identification and who did/did not take an oath. Notary Public State of Florida Signature of Notary Public Chelsea Lach My Commission un HH 254000 Exp. 612312026 My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) l .Vlrt Src 1_4 , C_tl Printed Name of Notary Public Rev. 3/4/2015 Packet Pg. 515 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 516 9.A.3.e April 24, 2023 2095 Harbor Lane Naples, FL 34104 Collier County Growth Management Timothy Finn — Planner III 2800 Horseshoe Drive N !Naples, FL 34104 Dear Mr. Finn, Please accept this letter and the supporting attachments in regards to the upcoming Collier County Planning Commission Public Hearing regarding rezoning Brookside Marina. Two of the parcels that are being reviewed at this hearing (00386120002 and 00386080003) have a designated use code of 95 — River and Lakes, Submerged Lands, and they are currently house floating docks that are designated to have 39 boat slips. As recently as a week ago, neighbors who live on the water, observed as many as 68 boats docked in these slips, as the additional boats were being rafted up to other boats. It's also important to note that no taxes are currently being payed far the use of these two parcels. A business should be required to pay taxes on properties they use for business purposes, similar to how they are paying for taxes on the yacht basin parcel (00386200003). Below are some code violations that have occurred on parcels of Brookside Marina recently, related to the lessee, Freedom Boat Club: 1. A temporary trailer used by Freedorn Boat Club as an office, was granted a temporary permit for 730 days (April 17, 2018 to April 17, 2020). Despite Freedom Boat Club being notified of the infraction, being in violation, and non -compliant, which resulted in Freedom Boat Club being instructed to not utilize the trailer for any future use, the trailer (2017 Davis Blvd) wasn't removed until January 23, 2023, 1,012 days beyond the allowable period, Code Enforcement Case Number: CETU20220008804 2. A gazebo/deck was built next to the temporary trailer on the property without a permit, after a complaint was made to Code Enforcement, the gazebo/deck was removed sometime in November 2022. Code Enforcement Case Number: CESD20220008805 On August 19, 2022, Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Fire and Life Safety notified the Lessee, Freedom Boat Club of a stop work order, that provided the following comments: "the two gasoline storage tanks at your facility do not meet 7th Ed. Florida Fire Prevention Code NFPA 142.9, NFPA 30, 30A nor 303 standards. The tanks at your facility are diesel tanks which have N m c m :a to O O m 0 IT LO 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a rn N Packet Pg. 517 9.A.3.e gasoline storage in them. Your site will need to pull a permit for a permanent installation." in addition, on the same inspection, the inspector commented, "No further use of the gasoline tanks may occur. 10 days have been provided to allow removal of the tanks." Despite these actions being required, they failed to comply, and on August 30, 2022, they were issued a red tag by the Fire District, and fined $250 as a result on August 31, 2022 (supporting documents attached). This morning, another temporary fuel tank was observed on the property by a neighbor (see picture below. What's concerning about the fuel is how the hose and pump handle is being stored, and the amount of oil slicks in the water that have been observed by homeowners living on this waterway. After Freedom Boat Club received their red tag from the Fire District, they began to bring fuel to the dock on their own via gas cans, as you can see in the below photo. The Environment Resource Permit, Permit: 01731790-003 El, clearly states "17. No Fuel storage shall be allowed on the docking structures", and it also states under the section entitled Specific Conditions - Operation and Maintenance Activities: "12. The permittee shall be equipped to adequately respond to fuel spills at the marina. The permittee shall accomplish this by: (a) installing, maintaining, and being capable of fuel spill equipment; (b) being a member of a fuel spill cooperative; or (c) contracting responsibility to a fuel spill contractor acceptable to the Department." 1 N c� c m 0 0 m 0 LO 0 0 0 0 r O N J a r` N Packet Pg. 518 9.A.3.e Based on the information provided above, it's clear that the operations at this location have a history of dismissing codes and regulations. I would encourage the planning commission to look closely at Collier County code requirements, Environmental Requirements, and Fire Code requirements to ensure the property is currently compliant and that the waterway has the ability to handle the number of boats being proposed at the marina, prior to approving the request to ensure that the plans will allow the site to remain compliant. Two requests that I would make of the commission is to make it clear that only one boat is permitted at each slip, regardless of the number approved; and change the use code for parcels 00386120002 and 00386080003, to 20 -Airports, Bus Terminal, Piers, Marinas, and appropriately tax these parcels. Based on the information shared, it's understandable as to why there is hesitation on neighborhood residents to accept the changes that are being proposed. Our waterway is not only a beautiful resource, but it also plays an integral role in the everyday lives of our community members. As residents, we have a vested interest in maintaining the health and well-being of this waterway. It directly affects the environment in which we live, work, and raise our families. We also derive great pleasure from utilizing the waterway in a safe and responsible manner for recreational activities, such as boating, kayaking, paddleboarding, and fishing. While we understand that your business is driven by the objective of generating revenue, we believe that it is essential to recognize that our mutual interests can coexist harmoniously. By taking into account the concerns of the residents and making certain concessions, your business can demonstrate a commitment to responsible corporate citizenship and forge stronger ties with the Brookside Neighborhood. One concession I would like to request, is the Brookside Marina grant the residents of the Brookside Neighborhood Riparian Rights to the boat ramp on the property, and one slip space to utilize while loading or unloading a boat/kayak/paddleboard in the water. Many longtime residents of Packet Pg. 519 9.A.3.e the Brookside neighborhood have mentioned this existed in the past, and I think it would be a great way to further develop and foster a relationship between Brookside Marina and the Neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, C. Todd Morrison c.todd.morrison@gmail.com N c� c •L c� m .y 0 0 L m O T" O O O r O N J a v N Packet Pg. 520 9.A.3.e OFFICE COPY r INSPECTOk N w Cu c 'i f� Y O O ML Lo Lo T" T Q CD Cn T 0 N J a v N Packet Pg. 521 MobileE} es 9.A.3.e Page 1 of Greater Naples Fire Rescue District 2700 Horseshoe Drive North Naples. FL 34104 Freedom Boat Club. LLC 2015 Davis Boulevard Naples FL 34104 Invoice # 220831146001 Invoice Date 8/31 /2022 Balance Due $250.00 Due Date 9/15/2022 Due upon receipt Make checks payable to. Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Please remit payment with invoice number to. Attention Tracey Caparreili Greater Naples Fire Rescue District 2700 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Fire & Life Safety 2700 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 774-2800 Fax: (239) 774-3116 Freedom Boat Club. LLC 2015 Davis Boulevard Naples FL 34104 Invoice #220831146001 8/31/2022 Description Amount Amount Paid Red Tag issued on 8/30/2022 on fuel tanks Tanks shall be removed from site. Tanks. with approved permit, are allowed on site $250.00 Subtotal: $250.00 SO 00 Balance Due: $250.00 Inspector: Signature on file Captain Shar Beddow 8/31 /2022 file://IC:1TradeMaster.%201nc/MobileEyes/(m!oiceReport.htm Packet Pg. 522 9.A.3.e Occupant Name Suite: Address: City: Greater Naples Fire Rescue District 2700 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 774-2800 Fax: (239) 774-3116 Freedom Boat Club LLC 2015 Davis Boulevard Naples Occupant Number: Fuel Complaint - Red Tag -i �; � .. 1 Location Inspection Date: 8/31/2022 InspectionType: Complaint, Red Tag Inspected By: Captain Shar Beddow (239)241-1422 Direct sbeddow@gnfire.org Code Set FL NFPA 01 2018 Chapter 1 Administration Inspector Comments: See additional information Cc("C 1 12 8 - Permit Requirements Inspector Comments: Red tag issued on tanks during field inspection 8/30/2022. Correspondence below 8/3112022. is follow up to questions received via email. From: Shar Beddow Sent Wednesday. August 31 2022 9 32 AM To Barry Slade Subject RE 2015 Davis Blvd Inspection Report Freedom Boat Club Mr. Slade Thank you for the update I appreciate it I hope this supplemental information answers your questions 1) Use of facility where repair/maintenance is occurring located in 2025 Davis Blvd shall have an occupational license inspection. The last occupational license on file for this location in our files and in property appraiseraETMs records is for Gulf Shores Marina LLC The trailer does have an occupational license 2) 1 wanted to provide some additional direction should your agency choose to install permanent fueling tanks Unfortunately the two temporary tanks installed. which your agency has been directed to remove. are allowed by code for 180 days in a 12 month period provided they are code compliant The installation which was installed fueling at the docks and etc was not complaint It is acknowledged that the tanks may have been manufactured for gasoline however the installation at the site was not code compliant Below are the codes which affect permanent AG and UG tanks and dispensing facilities. Should your agency choose to move forward with permitting a tank and dispensing installation this agency will assist in any way to expedite the fire review and field fire inspection. 3) Thank you for the annual inspection report by Tri-Serve for the standpipe system Could you also provide the following #ile:///C:/TradeMaster.%2Olnc/MobileEyes/InspectionReport.ht n Packet Pg. 523 9.A.3.e Page' of Can you please provide me with the private fire hydrant ITM and flow results? Can you please provide me with the 5 year inspection results also") Supplemental Code Information: Installations of flammable and/or combustible liquids are required to meet the 7th Ed. of the Florida Fire Prevention Code. FFPC 101 1 1(1) (12), Table 1.1 12.8. Fuel tanks installed shall be permitted to meet the requirements of the following codes. 7th Ed Florida Fire Prevention Code 2016 NFPA 30 2016 NFPA 303 Marinas and Boatyards 2018 NFPA 30 2018 NFPA 30A 2017 NEC 70 Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and I appreciate your quick action and attention to these items Sincerely Shar Beddow From: Barry Slade Sent Tuesday. August 30 2022 4:30 PM To Shar Beddow Cc John Combes . Fire & Life Safety : Scott Ward Subject: Re. 2015 Davis Blvd Inspection Report Hi Captain Beddow, Thanks for your time yesterday to discuss your Inspection Report dated 8/19/2022 As stated we want to be a good Corporate Citizen, as well as a good neighbor and will cooperate to resolve these as soon as possible Below is some information we hope you will find useful in getting these matters finalized. I will refer to the 4 items in the order they appear on the report. 1) We are not aware of any infractions and have not been made aware of any violations involving our Occupational License You indicated you could provide us with some supporting documentation to understand this matter. Could you please provide that information? 2) Both tanks were removed today While arguing this now won#TM't make a difference we still do not agree that the tanks are built only for diesel. and have several experts in the industry who support our position If/when the matter become pertinent again. we will present this data for your review. 3) The fire equipment is inspected regularly. most recently in January. As we discussed, this is likely just a case of proper labelling. Please see attached and confirm We can obtain additional reports dating back several years if needed. 4) See item 2 above Many thanks I look forward to hearing back from you Regards. tile:///C:rFradeMaster"/o20lnc/N4obileE,,Ies/inspectionReport.him Packet Pg. 524 9.A.3.e PaL,e = of Barry From- Fire & Life Safety Date Monday. August 29. 2022 at 4 50 PM To: Barry Slade . Shar Beddow Subject: 2015 Davis Blvd Inspection Report "" CAUTION- External email. be careful with links and attachments " Good Afternoon Mr. Slade, As requested, attached please find Captain BeddowbE7ms inspection report for 2015 Davis Blvd. Unfortunately I was unable to locate an occupational license inspection report referenced on her report. By copy to Captain Beddow, Upon your return to the office Tuesday, would you please contact Mr Slade with the additional information? To reach him via telephone. please call 941-716-7774. Thank you. Best Regards Tracey Tracey Caparrelli I Administrative Assistant Fire & Life Safety Section Greater Naples Fire Rescue District 2700 Horseshoe Drive North Naples. FL 34104-6918 (239) 774-2800 ext 2104 www.greatemaplesfire org Please click on the link below for a brief survey Customer Service Satisfaction Surrey Professionalism - Integrity - Compassion Information contained in this email pursuant to Florida Statute 119. is subject to a public records release. This email. including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited If you are not the intended recipient(s). please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of original message. . R..f..f.. •....lf!!1!!fl+. This email message may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient. please delete the message and any attachments and notify the sender by return email. You should not retain. distribute, disclose or use any of the information in this message. .... ........... .......... , This data is internal to Brunswick file:,,C:'TradeMaster.%201nc/MobileE,.eslnspectionReport.btm Packet Pg. 525 9.A.3.e Pale 4 tit, Inspector will return on or after 9I112022 unless an inspection is requested for an earlier date. Thank you for your cooperation in keeping your business and our community safe! If you have any questions, please contact the fire inspector listed at the top of this report. Signature on file Inspector: Captain Shar Beddow 8/31 /2022 file:/l/C:/TradeNlaster,%201nc/MobilcEyes/InspectionReport.htm Packet Pg. 526 9.A.3.e Greater Naples Fire Rescue District 2700 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 Freedom Boat Club. LLC 2015 Davis Boulevard Naples FL 34104 Freedom Boat Club, LLC 2015 Davis Boulevard Na les FL 34104 Invoice # 220831146001 Invoice Date 8/31/2022 Balance Due $250.00 Due Date 9/15/2022 Due upon receipt. Make checks payable to: Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Please remit payment with invoice number to: Attention Tracey Caparrelli Greater Naples Fire Rescue District 2700 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Fire & Life Safety 2700 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 Phone (239)774-2800 Fax: (239) 774-3116 Invoice #220831146001 8131/2022 Description Amount Owed Amount Paid Red Tag issued on 8/30/2022 on fuel tanks. Tanks shall be removed from site. Tanks, with approved permit, are allowed n site. $250.00 Subtotal: $250.00 $0.00 Balance Due: $250.00 Inspector: V 10 4? AV sig'-t ro valid only m —t6 4.v— d.—tc Captain Shar Beddow 8131 /2022 N c •L (D 0 0 m 0 in 0 0 0 a) 0 N J d o� N C i c 0 U 4- 0 L r ..t J C d t V R a+ a r 0 E 0 r a Packet Pg. 527 9.A.3.e h�EN r` Greater Naples Fire Rescue District I 2700 Horseshoe Drive North y Naples. Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 774-2800 E RF.S0' Fax (239) 774-31 16 Occupant Name: Freedom Boat Club, LLC inspection Date: 8/19/2022 N Suite: InspectionType: Complaint IX Address: 2015 Davis Boulevard Inspected By: Captain Shaf Beddow (239)241-1422 Direct sbeddow@gnfire.org City: Naples Occupant Number: Fuel Complaint y Insp. Result Location Code Set CodeO O FL NFPA 01 2018 1.7 4.1 -Final Set up for OLIBTR. L Chapter 1 Administration Inspector Comments: Occupational license for the trailer and boat docks did not pass and several violations noted. No evidence of including the other structure in the occupational license noted. � FL NFPA 01 2018 1.7.15 - Stop Work Order 0 o Chapter 1 Administration rn Inspector Comments: The two gasoline storage tanks at your facility do not meet 7th Ed. Florida Fire Prevention Code NFPA 1 T" N 42.9. NFPA 30, 30A nor 303 standards. The tanks at your facility are diesel tanks which have gasoline storage in them. Your site will a need to pull a permit for a permanent installation. FL NFPA 01 2018 10.2.5 - Owner/Occupant Maintain All Life Safety Systems and Testing Chapter 10 General Safety Requirements Paperwork. 10 N Inspector Comments: During the inspection it was noted that the tags for the private hydrant inspections and the boat dock O standpipe from the fire sprinkler contractor per 2017 NFPA 25. Provide reports for the ITM (inspection, testing and maintenance) of y both systems. Private hydrant flow test results shall also be included in annual report as well. Both systems shall be tagged by the c fire sprinkler contractor. O U FIL Fail Chapter 1 Administration NFPA D1 201.7.16.1 - Excerpt When, in the opinion of the AHJ, an imminent... Chapter p L Inspector Comments: No further use of the gasoline tanks may occur. 10 days have been provided to allow removal of the tanks. r d J Thank you for your cooperation in keeping your husiness and our community safe! If you have any questions, please contact the fire inspector listed at the top of this report. e' E Ref: 61002 csi Packet Pg. 528 9.A.4 05/04/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Doc ID: 25138 Item Summary: PL20210002658 - Stor All Storage Rezone (RZ) - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, rezoning of property from Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to Heavy Commercial District (C-5), subject to conditions, for a self -storage facility and general commercial district (C-4) uses on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) just east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), 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 consisting of approximately +/-5.98 acres, located on Lots 2 and 3 of Inland Village, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 2005-35 and Resolution No. 2014-140; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] Meeting Date: 05/04/2023 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Laura DeJohn 04/05/2023 4:54 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 04/05/2023 4:54 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Zoning Zoning Zoning Growth Management Department Planning Commission Ray Bellows Review Item James Sabo Review Item Mike Bosi Review Item James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Ray Bellows Meeting Pending Completed 04/11/2023 9:25 PM Review Item Completed 04/18/2023 4:37 PM Completed 04/20/2023 5:17 PM Completed 04/19/2023 12:53 PM Skipped 04/20/2023 2:25 PM Completed 04/20/2023 5:17 PM Completed 04/24/2023 3:28 PM 05/04/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 529 9.A.4.a Cot her County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 4, 2023 SUBJECT: PL20210002658; STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner(s): Stor-All Tamiami Trail, LLC 141 SE 1st Street Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 REOUESTED ACTION: Agent(s): Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President, Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL, 34110 The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of 5.98 acres from Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district to Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning district for a project known as the Stor-All Storage Rezone. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property is 5.98± acres (Parcel No. 726040001 & 725960001) located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41), approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 April 20, 2023 Page 1 of 16 Packet Pg. 530 r ' 7, E ■ 7/ o :a � y !Z ® §§ � � � � ■ � \� ¥ B All, : � \ 0& , n c 2 2 § �Z w 2 00IL k K Q � � a � ° �a a q \ Lei o � t A co Ln CD 04 CD 0 0 � CD � � n % � E _ � c W a. � � 2! C 0 4-0 m U 0 —i Q qor HgorageR zone, PL o»oo0 6 8 Page 2a]e A m 20,2023 Packet Pg. 531 9.A.4.a PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is a 5.98± acre site located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41), approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951). The subject site was rezoned in 2005 from Rural Agricultural (A) and Commercial Convenience with Special Treatment Overlay (C-2/ST) to the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District by Ordinance No. 05-35. Nine conditions and a Conceptual Site Plan accompanied this approval. A subsequent Conditional Use was approved by Resolution No. 2014-140 to allow food stores with greater than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure; eating places with more than 6,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure; and personal services, video rental or retail with more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. Fifteen conditions and a Conceptual Site Plan accompanied this approval, however the site was never developed. This site comprises Lots 2 & 3 of the Inland Village Subdivision. Immediately to the east, Inland Village Lot 1 is a 2.17-acre site developed with a recently constructed 94,191 square foot self - storage facility. This existing facility was allowed by zoning action of Ordinance No. 19-05 granting air conditioned indoor mini self -storage as a permitted use. Architectural Rendering included in petitioner's submittal The requested action proposes to rezone the property from C-3 to Heavy Commercial (C-5) to permit the development of a 105,000 square foot self -storage facility (motor freight transportation and warehousing, indoor air-conditioned only, SIC 4225) on Lot 2 and to allow other uses permitted in the C-4 zoning district on Lot 3, subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A). The petitioner also proposes the rezoning be subject to a Conceptual Site Plan included as Exhibit B in the Draft Ordinance and shown on the following page. The Future Land Use Map Designation is Urban, Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #18 (U.S. 41 & Collier Blvd.) Subdistrict. This location is within the boundaries of the Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 3 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 532 9.A.4.a East Naples Community Development Plan (ENCDP) and the proposed US 41 East Zoning Overlay (US 41 EZO), which is discussed in more detail in the GMP Consistency section on page 6 of this report. 0 w o >O gm co VI?L? 3� � r � ¢ > U cG z z 0 Q 0 N W¢ u1 lD > D N 0Lu g $g 2Ln U` V) ¢ Z v UZ� 3 !-Z c�� amo Jr-Wi co sOoo¢ a viwa .. W m Ql J W F H ++ O u o w W OC W Zd�NNJ �o-O vi noi .'v m J4Ld ` J W ® ONINOZ 9-0 I r I 0Moz 0 ® I F- I I r s a J ✓ I ma - - w l I 1 >e � .m � 4s > i o W ai wiz I 0N , z ® ono I �I _ N XX Wi rc I a o I � N oo m e i I I w Jam H �Jo � cmo I W �I m o= x � w� Z _ wo ® �_� I J w�,� oOF I ° l:.i rLl - wl z ow ON IS z 1 naw I I ® I / 0 �l. — -- — J I I II - 4 c~n w r w m � Aovsias _ _ P r y W _ _ _. I I � v J > O ILL r I w m I I I < Lit y j l co �� a o�z F-W y t m 1 z � � � °� � >ox 1 0 az J �o ��W � o I I _ W oay o>y a3 I ? I� as �N Q CRIn ONINOZ £-O Q � �k�swodms r� Petitioner's Conceptual Site Plan included as Exhibit B in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 4 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 533 9.A.4.a SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject parcel: North: Multi -family residential, zoned Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD South: Shell gas station zoned C-4, Wendy's fast food restaurant and Tamiami Crossing Shopping Center zoned Tamiami Crossing CPUD East: 94,191-square foot Public Storage self -storage facility zoned C-5 (Ordinance No. 19-05) West: CVS Pharmacy/Store zoned C-3/ST with Conditional Use approval and undeveloped parcel zoned C-3/ST. To the West Northwest is a +73,000-square foot self storage facility zoned Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD Q Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 5 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 534 9.A.4.a GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is currently located in Activity Center #18 in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states, "The Mixed - Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed -use in character. Further, they are generally intended to be developed at a human -scale, to be pedestrian -oriented, and to be interconnected with abutting projects —whether commercial or residential." The subject property is within the boundaries of the East Naples Community Development Plan (ENCDP) and the proposed US 41 East Zoning Overlay (US 41 EZO). The ENCDP was developed by the community through a series of public meetings and surveys and reflects the overall vision of the community; the Board of County Commissioners accepted the ENCDP in October 2020. The ENCDP promotes the strategic placement of land uses to enhance the community's sense of place and provides guidance for future development and redevelopment opportunities for employment, leisure, dining, and shopping to meet the growing needs of the community. The ENCDP also identifies a list of "undesirable" uses, including mini - warehousing use (self-storage/car storage, etc.), that are intended to be interspersed throughout the County to minimize the concentration of these uses along the roadways within the ENCDP boundaries. The community has worked with a consultant to develop a zoning overlay along the US 41 East corridor to establish development standards, design standards, and spacing criteria for commercial uses to address, in part, the undesirable uses identified in the ENCDP; the anticipated completion of the zoning overlay is Summer 2023. The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict contains a number of factors to be considered during review of a rezone petition; these are listed below and followed by staff analysis in italics. a) Rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. There shall be no minimum, acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. The proposed rezone application is not in the form of a PUD. However, it does generate consistency with the surrounding non-PUD commercial properties. b) Amount, type, and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC), and within two (2) road miles of the MUAC. The area in and around Activity Center #18 contains a variety of existing PUDs with commercial components including, but not limited to, Lely Resort PUD, Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD, Tamiami Crossing CPUD and Artesa Pointe PUD. The area also contains financial institutions, supermarkets, restaurants, and various other retail outlets that are consistent with C-2 through C-S commercial zoning districts. Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 6 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 535 9.A.4.a c) Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. There was no market study submitted to the County. However, the conceptual site/rezone proposes a self -storage facility (motor freight transportation and warehousing, indoor air- conditioned only, SIC 4225) which would be generally compatible with the existing adjacent self -storage facility (also owned by the subject property owner) and surrounding commercial in and around Activity Center #18. The applicant has indicated that the typical market area for self -storage facilities is three miles and that there are four existing self - storage facilities (other than the adjacent facility) within the market area, totaling approximately 392,300 square feet of storage use. While this does demonstrate a growing need for storage within the community, staff notes that this presents a high concentration of a use identified as "undesirable " by the ENCDP. d) Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two (2) radial miles. Current patterns of land use within the MUAC #18 include commercial, preserve, mixed use and residential uses. The pattern of land uses within 2 miles of the MUAC #18 include predominantly commercial and residential uses with a few undeveloped agricultural lots scattered throughout. e) Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. The subject property is serviced by adequate public facilities and has an existing access off U.S. 41. f) Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. See the StaffAnalysis on pages 8-9 of this reportfor the Zoning staff's compatibility review g) Natural or man-made constraints. There are no man-made or natural constraints that prohibit development of the site as currently zoned. h) Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. See the Rezone Findings on pages 9-12 of this report for the Zoning staff review of the rezoning criteria. i) Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Code. See the Transportation Review on pages 8-9 of this report. j) Coordinated traffic flow on -site and off -site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on -site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. See the Transportation Review on pages 8-9 of this report. Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 7 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 536 9.A.4.a k) Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting projects. Interconnection and access points are shown on the Conceptual Site Plan included as Exhibit B in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A). 1) Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. No deviations from the architectural standards of the LDC are proposed with this petition. Staff Finding: Based upon the above analysis, the proposed rezone may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Comprehensive Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed self -storage project in the form as submitted is inconsistent with the vision of the ENCDP and does not align with the community's development objectives for the area. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's July 21, 2022 (revised), Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the current 2022 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current A UIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and C. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " The staff has evaluated the TIS submitted with the proposed petition and has found that the Stor- All Rezone will add an additional +/-106 PM peak hour two-way trips on the adjacent roadway network. The TIS includes two reasonable scenarios of development with the lower trip count Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 8 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 537 9.A.4.a scenario used for the proposed trip cap. The additional trips will impact the following roadway network links: Link # Roadway Link Location 2022 AUIR P.M. Peak Hour 2022 AUIR Remaining Existing Peak Direction Capacity LOS Service Volume/Peak Direction 36.1 Collier Wal-Mart Driveway F 2,500/North (121) 1,2 Boulevard to US 41 (Tamiami Tr.) 35.0 Collier US 41 (Tamiami Tr.) D 3,200/North 501 1 Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. 34.0 Collier Rattlesnake D 3,000/North 2181 Boulevard Hammock Rd. to Davis Blvd. 95.1 US 41 Collier Blvd. to C 3,100/East 1,454 (Tamiami Joseph Ln. Trail East) 95.2 US 41 Joseph Ln. to C 2,000/East 667 (Tamiami Greenway Rd. Trail East) 94.0 US 41 Collier Blvd. to C 3,000/East 973 (Tamiami Triangle Blvd. Trail East) 93.0 US 41 Triangle Blvd. to D 3,000/East 2801 (Tamiami Rattle Snake Rd. Trail East) 1. Projected deficiencies for these segments are due to background traffic from the trip bank not caused by this development. Network improvements north of the impact area are anticipated to potentially address the deficiencies. The deficiency currently exists and is not caused by this development. See applicable portions of Florida Statute 163.3180 below. 2. Existing deficiencies. 6-lane improvement FDOT funding for ROW within the 5-year planning period and continue monitoring. The deficiency currently exists and is not caused by this development. See applicable portions of Florida Statute § 163.3180 below. Florida Statute § 163.3180. Concurrency - ■ Must allow an applicant to enter into a binding agreement to pay or construct their proportionate fair share. ■ Facilities determined to be deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips plus projected background traffic from any source other than the development shall be removed from the proportionate share calculation. ■ The improvement necessary to correct this type of deficiency is the funding responsibility of the maintaining entity. ■ Applicant must receive credit for the anticipated road impact fees. ■ The applicant calculated their proportionate share and it does not exceed the impact fees anticipated to be collected. Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 9 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 538 9.A.4.a As outlined above the proposed development is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan within the 5-year planning period, and the Transportation Planning staff recommends approval of the request. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the petition. No revisions to the environmental portions of the rezoning petition are being made. The proposal is consistent with the CCME. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff concludes that this petition is consistent with the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed self -storage project in the form as submitted is inconsistent with the vision of the ENCDP and does not align with the community's development objectives for the area. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.08.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. This evaluation is completed as part of the Zoning and Land Development Review provided below. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition. The recorded Conservation Easement (1.68 acres, OR 3989 PG 591-596) will not be impacted by the proposed petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval based on consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan within the 5-year planning period. Zoning Review: The land use pattern in the local area contains a mix of multi -family residential and commercial uses. The current zoning of C-3 is consistent with the established zoning pattern for the area. The proposed rezoning to C-5 to allow for a self -storage facility is consistent with the zoning and use of property to the east. However, this property is located in Activity Center #18, as well as a Regional Center Subdistrict of the pending US41 East Corridor Zoning Overlay, which is envisioned to be a compact urban mixed -use node that is walkable and transit friendly. While staff is concerned about the high proportion of vehicular -oriented uses and concentration of self - storage facilities where the community endorsed vision for the area is to promote more entertainment and employment centers, it is notable that the representatives who attended the NIM from the adjacent Falling Waters neighborhood indicated the level of activity generated by the proposed storage facility is preferred if properly screened and buffered and limited in height, compared to higher intensity, high traffic, noisier commercial uses. Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 10 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 539 9.A.4.a The conditions of approval included as Exhibit A in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) provide that the self storage will have a 180-foot setback from Falling Waters, limit the hours for the self storage operation to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., limit lighting to not exceed 10 feet in height, require interior access for all self storage units, restrict parking, windows, and loading on the side of the building facing Falling Waters, and limit building height for self storage to 35 feet zoned and 38 feet actual. Additionally, conditions are established for other uses on the property, including a maximum building height of 35 feet zoned and 42 feet actual. Several uses are prohibited including gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps, which are identified as "undesirable" in the ENCDP. 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" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in non -bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff concludes that this petition is consistent with the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed self -storage project in the form as submitted is inconsistent with the vision of the ENCDP and does not align with the community's development objectives for the area. 2. The existing land use pattern. The proposed rezone will not affect the existing land use pattern. The subject property is located in an urbanized portion of the county near the intersection of Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41/East Tamiami Trail. It is within Mixed -Use Activity Center #18. The existing land use pattern within Activity Center #18, includes a mixture of the C-3 through C-5 zoning districts and mixed uses including multi -family and commercial uses zoned PUD. Immediately east of the subject site is zoned C-5 and developed with a self -storage facility. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The rezoning will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The adjacent property to the east is also zoned C-5. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing district boundaries coincide with lot lines, and the proposed rezoning coincides with Lots 2 & 3 of the Inland Village Subdivision. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 11 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 540 9.A.4.a The proposed rezoning from C-3 to C-5 is not specifically necessary. However, the petitioner believes the rezoning is necessary to accommodate a self -storage facility and wider range of uses on Lot 3. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Through the application of conditions of approval, the change resulting from the development of land as proposed in this rezoning request may be ameliorated to the extent the neighborhood is not adversely impacted. The conditions of approval included as Exhibit A in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) provide that the self storage will have a 180-foot setback from Falling Waters, limit the hours for the self storage operation to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., limit lighting to not exceed 10 feet in height, require interior access for all self storage units, restrict parking, windows, and loading on the side of the building facing Falling Waters, and limit building height for self storage to 35 feet zoned and 38 feet actual. Additionally, conditions are established for other uses on the property, including a maximum building height of 35 feet zoned and 42 feet actual. Several uses are prohibited including gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps, which are identified as "undesirable" in the ENCDP. 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. As outlined in the Transportation Element evaluation and Transportation Review above, the proposed development is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan within the 5-year planning period. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. It is not anticipated that rezoning of the property will create any stormwater related issues. Stormwater best management practices, treatment and storage will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 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. Development of the site will need to meet the site design standards as set forth in the LDC. The conditions of approval included as Exhibit A in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) provide increased setbacks and stricter height limits to protect from reduction of light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 12 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 541 9.A.4.a This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the rezoning would be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 1Z Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed rezoning, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning. The current zoning designation of C-3 permits intermediate types of commercial uses. The petitioner contends that the proposed rezoning presents an opportunity to viably develop the property in an area where the concentration of commercial uses is encouraged, given that the subject property is located near a major intersection (C.R. 951 and US 41) and has remained vacant. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff s position that the proposed rezoning to the C-5 zoning district and resulting facilities may be out of scale with the needs of the community. Should the rezoning and proposed use be approved, nearly 272,000 square feet of self -storage facilities will be concentrated within the immediate area. (proposed 105,000sf + existing 73,000 s.f. to the west + existing 94,191 s.f. abutting to the east). However, this also indicates that there is a growing need for facilities that store goods for the surrounding community. The proposed building will be limited to zoned height of 35 feet and actual height of 38 feet, which is consistent with the building immediately to the east and compatible with the two-story height of the multi -family buildings at Falling Waters Beach Resort. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 13 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 542 9.A.4.a There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the proposed uses; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any future development anticipated by the rezoning would require site alteration. This project will undergo evaluation relative to federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The proposed development is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan within the 5-year planning period. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. The 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. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The petitioner conducted a NIM on July 6, 2022, at Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Preserve, 300 Tower Road, Naples, FL 34113. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:08 p.m. Approximately nine participants attended in person as well as two ZOOM participants. The agent Bob Mulhere described the proposed rezoning to convert the property from C-3 to C-5 with conditions to allow for a self -storage facility and full range of C-4 permitted uses. After presentation of a rendering of the proposed use, an attendee asked about the design of the self -storage facility. The agent responded that it should match the adjacent self -storage facility. Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 14 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 543 9.A.4.a The agent stated that the East Naples Civic Association asked them to include office or retail on the ground floor of the self -storage facility, noting concerns that the use does not include any significant employment generating opportunities. The petitioner stated that they do not believe mixed use is a viable option within a self -storage building. An attendee asked about the existing access, and the agent advised that no changes are proposed to the access. An attendee asked if the County was in the process of developing an overpass for this area. The agent responded that the County has plans for three flyovers in a long range plan and is deciding which to prioritize, noting that a flyover could affect some of the nearby uses, which the agent said justifies not developing something more intense. Jacob Winge, President of the East Naples Civic and Commerce Association, agreed that multiple fast food restaurants would be improbable for the site, but stated that the proposed use provides zero economic benefit to the community and that medical or office would be a better fit. He requested the applicant consider a mixed use development type. The petitioner stated that mixed use could not be justified, and no economic feasibility could be identified for any other use in the property's location. The Falling Waters HOA President spoke to support the quieter and lower traffic generation of the storage facility, noting that the relationship between the HOA and the developer has been a positive one. A copy of the NIM materials is included in Attachment D of this Staff Report. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC): This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's office on April 7, 2023. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PL20210002658 Stor-All Rezone to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of denial because the proposed self -storage project in the form as submitted is inconsistent with the vision of the East Naples Community Development Plan and does not align with the development objectives for the area. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval, a draft Ordinance with Conditions of Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 15 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 544 9.A.4.a Approval and Conceptual Site Plan is provided in Attachment A. Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance B. Rezone Ordinance No. 2005-35, Conditional Use Resolution No. 2014-140, HEX Decision 2014-13 C. Application/Backup Materials D. NIM Documents Stor-All Storage Rezone, PL20210002658 Page 16 of 16 April 20, 2023 Packet Pg. 545 ORDINANCE NO.2023- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REZONING PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT (C-3) TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-5), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR A SELF -STORAGE FACILITY AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-4) USES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (US 41) JUST EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), 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 CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 5.98f ACRES, LOCATED ON LOTS 2 AND 3 OF INLAND VILLAGE, IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 2005-35 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2014-140; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20210002658] WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2005-35 rezoned this property from "A" Rural Agriculture and "C-2ST" Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment Overlay to "C-3" Commercial Intermediate, and Resolution No. 2014-140 allowed certain conditional uses on this property NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of the herein described real property more particularly described in Exhibit C, located on Lots 2 and 3 of Inland Village, in Section 3, Township 51 [22-CPS-02215/1773296/1] 28 PL20210002658 Stor-All Storage (RZ) Page 1 of 2 4/5/2023 Packet Pg. 546 9.A.4.b South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to Heavy Commercial District (C-5), subject to conditions of approval listed on Exhibit A. Exhibits A, B, C, and D are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 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: Repeal of Existing Ordinances and Resolutions. Ordinance No. 2005-35 and Resolution No. 2014-140 are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION THREE: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Derek D. Perry Assistant County Attorney Attachments: 2023. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit C: Sketch and Legal Description Exhibit D: Location Map [22-CPS-02215/1773296/1] 28 PL20210002658 Stor-All Storage (RZ) Page 2 of 2 4/5/2023 Rick LoCastro, Chairman Packet Pg. 547 9.A.4.b Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 548 Exhibit A — Conditions of Approval Stor-All Rezone PL20210002658 1. The following uses are hereby authorized: a. Unless otherwise provided, all permitted uses in the C-4 general commercial district; and b. Motor freight transportation and warehousing, (Group 4225, indoor air-conditioned and mini -and self -storage warehousing only), to be permitted only on lot 2 as shown in Exhibit 13- Conceptual Site Plan. 2. The following standards apply only to the air-conditioned, indoor, mini, self -storage use: a. The minimum setback from the northern property line shall be 180 feet. b. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. c. Exterior lighting on the rear/north side of the building shall be limited to full cut- off low level security lights, mounted to the building, not to exceed 10 feet in height. d. All self -storage units shall be accessed from the interior of the building. e. The maximum self -storage unit size shall be 200 square feet. f. There shall be no parking on the rear/north side of the building. g. There shall be no functional windows on the rear/north side of the building. h. Loading areas and building access shall be prohibited on the rear/north side of the building. i. The building height shall not exceed a zoned building height of thirty-five (35) feet, and an actual height of thirty-eight (38) feet. 3. The following uses are prohibited: a. Amusement and recreation services, outdoor (7999 - fishing piers and lakes operation, houseboat rental, pleasure boat rental, operation of party fishing boats, canoe rental only). b. Automobile Parking, automobile parking garages and parking structures (7521 - shall not be construed to permit the activity of "tow -in parking lots"). c. Automotive vehicle and equipment dealers (5511 and 5599, new vehicles only). d. Convenience Stores with Gas Pumps only (SIC 5411). e. Gasoline Service Stations (SIC 5411). f. Homeless Shelters. g. Hospitals (SIC 8062-8069). h. Marinas (SIC 4493). i. Outdoor storage of materials. j. Pawn Shops. k. Public or private parks and playgrounds. 1. Repair services - miscellaneous (7699 - except agricultural equipment repair, awning repair, beer pump coil cleaning and repair, blacksmith shops, catch basin, hl:\2021\2021 115\WP\3rd ResubmittaRExhibit A -Conditions of Approval (1-25-2022).docx Packet Pg. 549 septic tank and cesspool cleaning, industrial truck repair, machinery cleaning, repair of service station equipment, boiler cleaning, tinsmithing, tractor repair). m. Sexually Oriented Business. n. Soup Kitchens. 4. No more than one (1) approved Fast Food drive -through establishment shall be allowed. The ordering window shall not be located within 100 feet of the Falling Waters Beach Resort property line, and drive through lane(s) and/or ordering or payment windows shall not be located between the building and US 41 frontage. 5. No building or structure shall exceed a zoned building height of thirty-five (35) feet, and an actual height of forty-two (42) feet, except as otherwise identified herein. 6. Dumpsters and dumpster enclosures shall not be placed within 100 feet of the perimeter boundary with Falling Waters Beach Resort property line. 7. The exterior wall of any building shall be designed to minimize noise impacts on adjacent residential property to the north (Falling Waters Beach Resort), except as provided in Paragraph 4, above. 8. Amplified sound for approved land uses are limited to areas fronting Tamiami Trail East (US 41) between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Amplified sound shall not be permitted in the structure side plane areas or break past the side plane of the building, except for speaker (s) associated with limited drive -through uses. 9. Light fixtures shall be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet. 10. Parking Lot lighting shall be dark sky compliant (flat panel, full cut off fixtures backlight, uplight and glare (BUG) rating where U = 0) to avoid light spill onto adjacent properties. Light levels along the property boundary shall be limited to no more than .2 ft candles along the joint property line where adjacent to residential property. 11. The following perimeter landscape buffer requirements apply to the owner(s) of lot 2 and lot 3: a. The owner shall install landscaping required by the LDC on both sides of the wall along the northern property line of Lots 2 and 3 of the proposed Inland Village plat, as more specifically described in Exhibit B — Conceptual Site Plan, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any structures located on Lots 2 and 3 of the proposed Inland Villages plat. b. The owner shall paint and maintain good condition of both sides of the wall along the northern property line of lots 2 and 3 of the proposed Inland Village plat, as more specifically described in Exhibit B — Conceptual Site Plan. c. The perimeter buffer width along US 41 frontage shall be retained as approved by PL 20180002642 (SDP), at 20 feet and 10 feet in width, as depicted on the approved SDP landscape plans. 12. The maximum total daily trip generation for the Rezone shall not exceed 106 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. H:\2021\2021115\WP\3rd Resubmittal\Exh ibit A -Conditions of Approval (1-25-2022).docx Packet Pg. 550 13. Vehicular and Pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the west to allow access to all connection points with the subject property, consistent with the conceptual site plan and subject to an agreement from both property owners. 14. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 15. 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. H:\2021\2021115\WP\3rd Resubinittal\Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval (1-25-2022).docx Packet Pg. 551 9.A.4.b Exhibit B Conceptual Site Plan Packet Pg. 552 ((ZU) 0uoz0b 06eJO;S IN ao3S - 899Z000I,ZOZld : NMI £Z-90110 0OueUIPJO :;u0wyOe;IV Q Q M LO LO a Ln z LULU Ln F G Z w w N w w Z rn 0 U-J Q Ln � > LIJ V) ri ZLw II O Z Q w d O Ol U �a wCn ry)< w w F z a O O 0 L1J o OM CL a z w 2 U �a N Z L L1 LA Y Q M O a �NLn _ o w w fu V1 Cl) bo m 0-0 00•s ch N -a U) w c') LO Q U U 00 LO .�j bZ CWJ Z Z O N CLO0 W U Z_ 0 � � IZ mU)0 =)xcif <nwd JNINOZ 9-0 I r I / ------------� �— w w------------ ��I Q z I ® mI I I I r W I I . � ' Z F w- _ > co I m ui ® N I I J w Wiz m d.® o y I I f n I z '0 Ya W I R z ® 0 I w 0 < 0. I I w® o�� a I ® owW I N of I f OJw z -® wra-cy I ~O omo I w 111 n w I fn a�a I Qle 4 r K p Q I K O a m I a l V a Z as r I I ] m ® LU I I iJ. O d w I (V W "l O (pnp a -- — — — -II ---- — — m ---NOV9139 rrt w � I I I ao OSL 'NIVY m w I I I o w W IL I I m owz I I I Cl)c0w i z0 I w l- jr � J - z w w I I H w 0:w� I w I z. �0� FF� I I I O ¢z rwo I p I v~i uwi > j L) 1 z 0 X a w I z� w wpm I FW w w I a I I 0¢f" zaiw I I oz o Fn 0xm I I a I I ? o 0 1\ a I a y ---- _ --------=— a — — — -- ------� �- J oww o a. I I JNINOZ £-O b- W Wo o a- t- wi W Z 0 J m < Q CO �aa. W W Q Z ~ SOU OU U) w`,nmLi� mzos`s `a a w w co w lz- J_ O Q co �t au5 a? I- zra rase wa w' UP % Im sir I= 9.A.4.b Exhibit C Sketch and Legal Description Packet Pg. 554 9.A.4.b H:\2021\2021115\SKETCHES\2021115 SKETCH & LEGAL 2.dw9 10/21/2022 337:23 PU Plotted by: JosepbHorm 1 N 35'34'22" E POINT OF BEGINNING 007267LLC C LIQUORS INCTRG LLC ABC LIQUORS I 0.00 \ NW MOST CORNER OF "117fEE" /// (O.R. 4901, PG 28) NW MOST CORNER OF "PARCEL 4" N 35'34'22" i E 390.00' (O.R. 4380 PG. 3511) --, POINT OF COMMENCEMENT— I SW MOST CORNER OF "PARCEL 4" m � A m NW BOUNDARY OF 'PARCEL 4' (O.R. 4380, PG. 3511) m () n SW MOST CORNER OF "117FEE" o {O.R. 4380, PG 3511) (O.R. 4901, PG 28) T •A co ;0 mr M m O n T m (00725960001) N Z PARCEL 4 n Ln (STOR-ALL TAMIAMI TRAIL LLC) C 0 / -: N N � D U; LINE BEARING DISTANCE a 00 L1 N 35-39-35" E 10.00' m - O -------------------------------------------------- — W Q Om �•+ O D v o a in co A g Z cn , 0 m u� ao Lii Imo �o O _ / c�m yak U1 O V J m t ii z O �J oo � r % O ^o N K ;; "v N ? m m ^ J gym•+ d 0 00 L1 pm 0 r O D ' N CO) m N _ m Lh ri Z (00726040001) O PARCEL 3 D N (STOR-ALL TAMIAMI TRAIL LLC) 1= m r- Crl 00 O 00 E 00 N � r Q SE BOUNDARY OF "PARCEL 3" SE MOST CORNER OF "PARCEL 3" (O.R. 4380, PG 3511) NE MOST CORNER OF "PARCEL 3" (O.R. 4380 PG. 3511) (O.R. 4380 PG. 3511) 1 40 Bo 11 S 35'34'22" W 400.00' 1" _ (IN FEET) 00726727007 STOR-ALL TAMIAMI TRAIL LLC * NOT A SURVEY* LAWN BY: DATE. 950 Encore Way DRAWING NO. JNH 10 20 2022 Naples, FL. 34110 SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION EET t OF SHEETt Phone: (239) 254-2000 PROJECT NO. 2021115 Florida Certificate of STOR—ALL —COLLIER FILE NAME SEC-TWN-RGE "HL O T Authorization No.1772 1-51-26 MI1I5 SIM A LEGAL 2.a Exhibit C Packet Pg. 555 9.A.4.b H:\1021\2011115\SKETCHES\20211]5 SKETCH & LEG4 2.dwg 10/21/2022 3:35:56 PM PloHed by: JosephHorm LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS "PARCEL 4" AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4380, PAGE 3511. OF THE PUBLIC RECORD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE SAME BEING THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS "PARCEL 117FEE" AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4901, PAGE 28, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN N35'34'22"E, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 117FEE" AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N35'34'22"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 390.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 4"; THENCE RUN S54.25'38"E, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF "PARCEL 4" AND "PARCEL 3" ALL OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 438C, PAGE 3511, FOR A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 3"; THENCE RUN S35'34'22"W ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL 3", FOR A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY MOST CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 3"; THENCE RUN N54.25'38"W, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL 3", FOR A DISTANCE OF 288.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY MOST CORNER OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS "PARCEL 118FEE" AND RECORDED IN SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4901, PAGE 28, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN N35'39'35"E, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL 118FEE", FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 118FEE"; THENCE RUN N54.25'38"W, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID "PARCEL 118FEE" AND "PARCEL 117FEE" FOR A DISTANCE OF 371.79 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5.98 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "117FEE" OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING, AS BEING N54.25'38"W. ````�auuu11dr1nn� S M M HOLE MONTES, INC. �F''t\S �.NU. CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER LB 1772 - A": 5628 = o STATE OF Q Digitally signed by Tom Murphy N� �'. FLORIDA �oQ DN:cn=Tom Murphy, o=Hole Montes Inc., ou, •• ' A email=tommurphy@hmeng.com,-US ��� szo � •••..... ••• � ���` BY Date: 2022.10.3109:51:37-04'00' LS5628 �'�� �O/• O� ��� THOMAS M. MURPHY STATE OF FLORIDA �,,,�5�� IIII00`t0�.�`� DRAWN BY: DATE: 950 Encore Way JNH 10/20/2022 Naples, FL. 34110 SHEET 2 OF SHE2' Phone: (239) 254-2000 SEC-TWN-RGE: Florida Certificate of 3-51-26 L- O T Authorization No.1772 SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION STOR-ALL - COLLIER * NOT A SURVEY* DRAWING NO. H2127 PROJECT N0. 2021115 FILE NAME 2021115 SKETpI ! IEGdL 2.d, Packet Pg. 556 Also Described As: Lots 2 and 3, Inland Village, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 73, Pages 9 and 10, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. � S W i t. r ns Y1. b. �`.• - � i, Y, ��. is L:$< 9#&SE t1i a � � i t, xil an w.j 1 f , a Q Packet Pg. 557 9.A.4.b Exhibit D Location Map O L:i LC N O O O N O N J d CO M T- LO N M N O O N t) C fC C L 0 cd C t u R a+ r Q Packet Pg. 558 m X W ((ZN) OuozON 06eao;S IN JOTS - 899Z0004ZOZ-ld : BE496 CZ-90-VO 03UBUIPJO :}uGwt43BIIV Z P e tiP C 1 W H V j ��ey ti x \P � u t� e � mo �o � w LL� Q ai a yOr `bpe • � V r F AID V U my r 9661J O no e c x c u c �cd 0 �� `0 Q 11 �alaJ 0 a� Lel`a c 4 L a CL cu .O N 00 N O O O r N O N J N .Q E Z O CL ccu G 0 U J 0) LO LO 6 a a� Y V ca 9.A.4.c 1273'�,S�d ���89101I ORDINANCE NO.05 - s5 t Jill.fWr-CjD N AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04- �eZ9Z �' 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 OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 JUST EAST OF COLLIERVt BOULEVARD IN SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,"-~Y n� RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM "A",,, r F RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND "C-2ST" COMMERCIALtnf , �- CONVENIENCE WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAYm TO "C-3" COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE FOR RETAIL- OFFICE, AND RESTAURANT AND OTHER USES SUBJEC1Qc { TO CONDITIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIV�?; o DATE. fir,: WHEREAS, Southern Development Company, Inc., represented by Jeff L. Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the subject real property for Petition No. RZ-2003-AR-4961 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the subject real property, more particularly described by Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, located in Section 03, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Rural Agriculture and "C-2ST" Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment Overlay to "C-3" Commercial Intermediate for retail, office, and restaurant and other uses and the appropriate Official Zoning Atlas Map, as described in Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly, subject to the following conditions: 1. No development orders will be approved, other than to authorize construction of a required wall and Type `B" buffer adjacent to Falling Waters Beach Resort as set forth below, until sufficient capacity exists on all affected segments and the intersection of US- 41 and SR-951, as may be determined by the County's Concurrency Management System. 2. In addition to all required transportation impact fees, Developer may be required to make a proportionate, fair -share payment for required future capacity improvements to the intersection of US-41 and SR-951, i.e., payment equal to the cost to create sufficient capacity at that intersection for the traffic impacts created by the development. 3. Prior to any Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, other than to authorize construction of a required wall and Type "B" buffer adjacent to Falling Waters Beach Resort as set forth below, access to the adjoining commercial properties shall be provided in the form of easements granted to adjacent property owners to facilitate cross access between the commercial properties to the east and west of the subject property. 4. A sidewalk shall be constructed along the frontage of the subject property on Tamiami Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 560 9.A.4.c Trail (U.S. Highway 41) pursuant to LDC Sections 5.05.08.C.4, and 10.02.03.B.1.b.i.xiii. 5. Prior to approval of the development's first SDP, i.e., other than to authorize construction of a required wall and Type "B" buffer adjacent to the Falling Waters Beach Resort as set forth below, the Environmental Advisory Council will review the approved South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permit for mitigation of wetlands impacts. 6. In addition to any other rear yard requirement for this zoning district, no accessory or principal building may be permitted within sixty -feet of the rear (NE) property line. 7. Owner agrees to construct an eight foot (8') wall ten -feet inside the rear (NE) property line within 90 days from the date of issuance of the required development permit to construct the wall that will be uniformly landscaped and irrigated on both sides, as shown in rendering (Exhibit C), and as otherwise required by the LDC. The wall, landscaping, and irrigation facilities will be maintained by the property owner. 8. In addition to the otherwise applicable conditioned above, until the required wall, landscaping, and irrigation facilities are completed, no other building permits may be issued or approved for Phase III of the development, i.e., the subject petition. 9. Any trash enclosures constructed on Phase III, i.e., the subject petition, will be screened from view from the Falling Waters Beach Resort property as required by the Land Development Code (LDC). SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 28th day of June, 2005. ATT)ST;.i DW.IGHT E.,BkO&I CI,] RK v C Clerk Attest" W,t9rCAs it lwity SiVt+Ate4' cely. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency : Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney RZ-2003-AR4% 1 /MD/sp BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: `1 t-L4 W. FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRM Page 2 of 2 N m 0 N N rn R 0 a 0 �o N O O O N O N J a 00 M N N C 0 t5 a rn c a 0 N 0 m a r d E 0 R a This ordinance fiifrd w th.- Secretory of State's Off the G4hday of—' 1 5_ and acknowledge ent c )at filing received this ofoay f oau+v cork —'" Packet Pg. 561 9.A.4.c LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF NOTRH %z OF SECTION3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 3: FROM THE EAST '/, CORNER OF SECTION 3, RUN WITH SECTION LINE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 31 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 612.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 722.35 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY DRAINAGE CANAL WITH THE NORTH RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD #90 (TAMIAMI TRAIL); THENCE WITH SAID TRAIL RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE NORTH 54 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2647.51 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING WITH THE TRAIL RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE NORTH 54 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 440 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 440 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 44 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 4: CERTAIN LANDS SITUATED IN THE NW '/, OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, STATE OF FLORIDA; FROM THE NE CORNER OF SAID NW '/a, RUN WITH THE SECTION LINE NORTH 89 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 23 MINUTES 53 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 324.27 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 9951; THENCE WITH SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 35 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 8 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 1252.72 FEET TO ITS JUNCTION WITH THE NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE STATE ROAD #90; THENCE WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD #90 SOUTH 24 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 52 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 69.99 FEET AND SOUTH 54 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 379.38 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 35 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 400 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST A DISTNACE OF 220 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 44 SECONDS WEST A SISTANCE OF 400 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST A SISTANCE OF 220 FEET TO THE PIONT OF BEGINNING. CONTANINING APPROXIMATELY 6.07 ACRES EXHIBIT "A" Packet Pg. 562 ■ it Iif ((ZM) auozab 06eao;S 11V a04S - 999ZOOO MZ-ld 9E 6GZ) z s Z z Ln� moo. W U - SUOI43 y 6uiuoZ aoiad - 8 Rv :;uawy3e41v ii 11 { II I i w I N�tN , , I 8 00 i t I NZgo _tl I I N wN ~ o J II I 10 I aoZ a i z st mil ms0b �j I I I O d� It t=' z — Q 6 z J N LLI o, m �i I I I to Z> E' o `� n a�--�}-[D� I f I Q MH z G I (nI 4 .- -'� I zm ZW�e W W I � cWNo o W IL �D �► I N o W _ 2 SAUK oz = Z j t I � � 1t W a. zi w $ Pyie ONINOZ 1Sf N N N 4r 3801 Ito 5 b �88 ICI ' I GJ�y- o O 50C3 s onao sno C3 Z } z a v>" z�� = gc�LL OOZ -' w 5 L >r DWO Er j w 0 0 U) M Ln 6 a <.i a ((ZM) OUOZGM O6eJO;S IIV Jo4S - 999Z0006ZOZ-1d : BCLSZ) SUOl43V 6uluOZ iOlad - 8;}d :}uauay3e;;y 4 v_ t V) _J Q 0 W QV) 4: LW � a Z 4 � � J O O LL- C� Ljj o td WdZT :0i S00Z 0z 'unf 17TB0 ES2 tb6 : 'ON XU-� ti'1Sti `HOfltigU-JS 'ti 3-lbQ WOb � 9.A.4.c STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) N W a� c I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the N d Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby L O certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: U) a L O ORDINANCE NO. 2005-35 co co cm Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on c 0 the 28th day of June 2005, during Regular Session. N J a WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board ofco r LO N County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 5th day y Of July 2005. c O Q a� c O N O •L a DWIGHT E. BROCK o0 `Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex-officio .,�q�Board of a r County Commisers w By: Heidi R . Roc klztl_ d, ;'Deputy Clerk Packet Pg. 565 9.A.4.c RESOLUTION NO. 2014-fig p A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FOOD STORES WITH GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE (GROUPS 5411- 5499); PERMITTED FOOD SERVICE (5812, EATING PLACES) USES WITH MORE THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE; AND PERMITTED PERSONAL SERVICES, VIDEO RENTAL OR RETAIL USES (EXCLUDING DRUG STORES — 5912) WITH MORE THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, WITHIN A COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 2.03.03.C.1.c OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PETITION CU-PL20130001768] m0 cmz C?rC)� 0) M M -';0o o mmo CD O ZX W °) O n70 � OrA�+ ;a M F N -U DcnG) OD" n A a: m0 0M � J c O c WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use to allow food stores with greater than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure (groups 5411-5499); permitted food service (5812, eating places) uses with more than 6,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure; and permitted personal services, video rental or retail uses (excluding drug stores — 5912) with more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure, within a Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning Marco Park 41\CU-PL20130001768 1 of 3 Rev. 5/21/14 Packet Pg. 566 9.A.4.c District pursuant to Subsection 2.03.03.C.1.c of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made findings that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number CU-PL20130001768 filed by CSC Properties, LLC with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby approved for a Conditional Use to allow food stores with greater than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure (groups 5411-5499); permitted food service (5812, eating places) uses with more than 6,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure; and permitted personal services, video rental or retail uses (excluding drug stores — 5912) with more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure, within a Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District pursuant to Subsection 2.03.03.C.1.c of the Collier County Land Development Code, in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit "B" and subject to the conditions found in Exhibit "C". Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this . 67 • This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super -majority vote, this a4 day of or%& .2014. ATTEST;y\ DWIG1jT E.,BROCK, C'L#RK •A� AM Marco Park 411CU-PL20130001768 Rev. 5/21 / 14 2 of 3 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTX,1FLORIDA G, Packet Pg. 567 9.A.4.c Ap roved as o form and legality: 4 Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit C — Conditions of Approval CP\13-CPS-01274/62 Marco Park 41 \CU-PL20130001768 3 of 3 Rev. 5/21 / 14 Packet Pg. 968 9.A.4.c DE DAYIDSON 11.1 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A" PROPERTY DESCRIPTION BEING A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY MOST CORNER OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS "PARCEL 4" AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4380, PAGE 3511 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE SAME BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY MOST CORNER OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS "PARCEL 117FEE" AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4901, PAGE 28 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 35°34'22" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LAST OF SAID LANDS, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO NORTHWESTERLY MOST CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 117FEE" AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 35°34'22" EAST, ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL 4", A DISTANCE OF 390.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 4"; THENCE SOUTH 54°25'38" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF "PARCEL 4" AND, "PARCEL 3", ALL OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4380, PAGE 3511, A DISTANCE OF 660.000 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 3", THENCE SOUTH 35-34-22" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL 3", A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY MOST CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 3"; THENCE NORTH 54°25'38" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL 3", A DISTANCE OF 288.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY MOST CORNER OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS "PARCEL 118FEE" AND RECORDED IN SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4901, PAGE 28 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 35°35'42" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL 118FEE" A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 118FEE"; THENCE NORTH 54*25'38" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID "PARCEL 118FEE" AND "PARCEL 117FEE" A DISTANCE OF 371.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 260,282 SQUARE FEET OR 5.975 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Marco 41 Park CU: Attachment B — Legal Description www.davidsonengineering.com Packet Pg. 569 ((Zb) OUOZON O6eaOIS Ild JOIS - 899Z000�ZOZ-1d : 8£6SZ) SUOIIOV 6UIUOZ JOlad - 8;;d :;uOWL]Oellb Ntlld 311S ltln1d30NO3 .,ao,M C0 is3na3a !nu lawn ro a3a sralsw3a n II °�«ia •u3LrMar�lo J d: ffollb 14M. 92 I d Sr�IM. /4 Po 1 'CtbOb N01a3v-In S9ES O s1N3wwo3 !!vu Ia3b n If m n31 snolsv,3a n to I •O1'I'g3LLL3dOi/d 083 3Sn ivNowaN00 NNVd l6 OOUVW OU $ Q SLN3ww03 j— 1NN3b n Po bib GWISN3b n L1 G LLN3 00 !ltllG SWIS II [0 �O bib SrgI5N3b n f 4 S� r SN051A3U az yu31n L73rwb m ® � z z I o z m w IL Z 0 =) a 0, (31ON 33S)i o - NOV813S I 833dn9 3dVOSONtlI d OaVA 3016.91 \ ..V. 3dA1.M it _ u0, 1 + 1 WI m i ' w r , z1 + _ U,� '''r'i' G 7 � wm ¢ ¢Uw I aaw U-— a V a m w�o UI NO 1I--¢ o f'J Z �� ~ m 1 Z F co. ' , w O m M J Z H r 2 0 w y g �IUJI� I r r ¢Q w 1 + LLl cn + �¢ Yw of 0 1 w N V of r r J H 1 0O co - i �Zo w 1 Woo 1 i + +r' � � LL + , + , + + Z O _ 0— , r + O m M �i � r U d r'r r' 1 g W, ,, i+++ a ' '+ �'�' 'r +'r 1 > 1 i' — li r,+ +rrr+rr 1 1 r'r r 'r U oa,' 1 _ ¢ tY 1 �0 I w `LL Z i J I', g , ILL co + a 1 '+ 'r ' Lu WO'i ,'+'r+{r In OF ILL W¢ , r r +r, !—Zo p Z W ] Z, W p oo Q w 1 Cl) Z �N eO w ZM 0co w �Or 'a r' tA� + Z. + ra +ar 1 j + +a+ i az HOV913S a21tlA 301S sL 213ddn9 o z 3dVOSONVI VNINOZ 1S£-O E)NUSIX3 a X. 3d)1.0 3?JO1S Endo SAO F¢O w O OOw J 1 S90O N 1 3�i >0Q z LaU�w w x LL N U aQ=¢. w0Hwf xg 0 FZ=I� Z<> < 1 - w �¢f aLU1 c� �� OZO Zu. ZZ O uj0 cn00in 0 2 u- I 7 0 ti Io a1 d 0) U M ♦CL 8 I!q!4X3 9.A.4.c EXHIBIT "C" Conditions of Approval 1. This Conditional Use approval does not constitute approval of a subdivision. The buildings may be placed on one 5.97 acre site under common ownership or the property may be subdivided in accordance with the LDC. 2. No building for a use which would otherwise have been limited to 5,000 — 6,000 square feet or less shall be larger than 15,000 square feet. 3. All buildings subject to this conditional use which exceed the otherwise applicable 5,000 — 6,000 square foot limit shall be limited to 2-stories and have a maximum zoned height of 35 feet and an actual height of 45 feet. 4. No adult oriented sales or rentals are permitted in this project. 5. Dumpsters and dumpster enclosures shall not be placed within 100 feet of the perimeter boundary with Falling Waters Beach Resort property line. 6. The trip generation cap is 435 unadjusted, two-way, p.m. peak hour trips. 7. The required wall within the Type B Landscape Buffer adjacent to Falling Waters Beach Resort property line, as depicted on Exhibit B, shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit approval of any uses. 8. Amplified sound for approved land uses are limited to areas fronting Tamiami Trail East (US 41) between the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Amplified sound shall not be permitted in structure side plane areas or break past the side plane of the building, except for speaker(s) associated with limited drive -through uses. 9. No more than one (1) approved Fast Food drive -through establishment shall be allowed. The ordering window shall not be located within 100 feet of the Falling Waters Beach Resort property line. 10. Delivery hours shall be limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. 11. All pole lighting will be flat panel fixtures. 12. Lighting fixtures within 30 feet of the perimeter boundary of the project will utilize full cut off shields. 13. Any lighting fixture/structure within 50 feet of a residential property line will be limited to 15 feet in height. Page ] of 2 Packet Pg. 571 9.A.4.c 14. No pawn shops are permitted in this project. 15. The following uses have been prohibited per this conditional use request: a. Convenience Stores with Gas Pumps only (SIC Group 5411) b. Gasoline Service Stations (SIC Group 5541) c. Homeless Shelters d. Hospitals (SIC Groups 8062-8069) e. Marinas (SIC Group 4493) f. Residential dwelling units g. Soup Kitchens 13-CPS-01274/59 5/21/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 572 9.A.4.c HEX NO.2014 —13 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION PETITION NO. DRD-PL20130002659 — Petitioner, CSC Properties, LLC, requests approval of a site plan with deviations pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.03.F and seeks relief from (1) LDC Section 4.06.02 CA. "Alternative D Landscape Buffer" which requires a 20- foot wide Type "D" landscape buffer for developments within an activity center, to instead provide a 10-foot wide Type "D" buffer along the Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) corridor; and, (2) LDC Section 4.06.02.0 which requires a Type "A" buffer along platted lot lines between commercially developed property, to instead provide no buffer and relocate the vegetation elsewhere on site. The subject property consists of 16f acres of land located on the north side of Tamiami Trail E. (U.S. 41), just east of the Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Tamiami Trail E. (U.S. 41) intersection, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. DATE OF HEARING: June 12, 2014 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: Based on the applicant's written petition, testimony at the hearing of the applicant and the public, and the recommendation of staff, the Hearing Examiner finds that the criteria set forth in Section 10.02.03.17.7 of the Land Development Code has been met and the petition should be approved. ANALYSIS: This project currently exists as a single site development plan (SDP) encompassing multiple lots under common ownership, including the lots that are the basis for this application. Through this common SDP the prior owner previously provided parking to the existing buildings without strict adherence to individual lot boundaries, including 22 parking spaces and a stabilized vehicle turn around area on one of the lots subject to this application. Sometime thereafter, the lots that are part of this application were acquired by a new owner who intends to split the SDP into two separate SDPs. This future splitting will cause the lot containing the parking and vehicle turn around area to be separated from the adjacent lot containing the existing buildings. As a result, Deviation #2 is needed to allow the existing parking and turn around areas to continue servicing the adjacent originally developed site even though they are on separate lots. The landscaping material that would have been included within the area subject to Deviation #2 will be used to enhance the buffers between this affected lot and the residential project to the north, with the remainder of the landscaping material dispersed throughout other areas within the lot. With previous approvals, the original project was required to provide interconnection to the adjoining property to the northwest, which is currently occupied by a CVS Pharmacy. The easements, portions of the infrastructure and buffers, and a common entry have all been installed Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 573 9.A.4.c and proportioned to create this interconnection in accordance with the original approvals. Subsequent to that interconnection requirement, portions of the front of the properties that are part of this application were required to provide land for the widening of US 41. As a result of the land acquisition, retention of the twenty foot wide buffer along the US 41 frontage would not be possible without changes to the existing easements, portions of the infrastructure and buffers. Deviation # 1 allows for the width of the front buffer to be reduced to the ten feet that remains after the road widening, while providing that the same quantity of landscaping material that would have been in the twenty foot buffer to be located within the remaining ten feet. DECISION: The Hearing Examiner hereby approves Petition Number DRD-PL20130002659, filed by Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing CSC Properties, LLC, for a site plan with deviations for redevelopment for the property described in Exhibit "A", as follows: 1. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02 CA. "Alternative D Landscape Buffer" which requires a 20-foot wide Type "D" landscape buffer for developments within an activity center, to instead provide a 10-foot wide Type "D" buffer along the Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) corridor. Deviation #1 begins at this property's common property line along US 41 with the existing CVS Pharmacy to the northwest and continues southeast for approximately 373 feet; and 2. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.0 which requires a Type "A" buffer along platted lot lines between commercially developed property. Deviation #2 removes the buffer requirement between the existing retail store to the southeast and the common southeastern property line of this application. Material will be relocated to primarily supplement the existing buffer between Falling Waters Resort to the north and secondarily along the water management areas and landscape islands. These deviations are shown in the Deviations Detail attached as Exhibit "B," and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. This decision does not constitute approval of the site plan. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — legal description Exhibit B —Deviations Detail Exhibit C — Parking and Turn Around Area LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit A. CONDITIONS: Deviation #2 shall not be effective until a shared parking agreement or easement encompassing the existing parking spaces and stabilized turn around area located on Parcel 0072627007, consistent with Exhibit C, is recorded prior to the issuance of the first building permit on this parcel. However, if the applicant and the adjacent owner who benefits from the parking and turn around area mutually agree to modify the turn around area, then such modification shall be part of the required shared parking agreement or easement. Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 574 9.A.4.c APPEALS: This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. (o- 23-2oIg Date 13-CPS-01281/12 Ma •k Strain, Hearing Examiner App o ed as to form and legality: 61 0 Heidi shton- icko Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 575 9.A.4.c DE DAVIDSON FNGiiNFFRINC- LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A" BEING A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTH '/z OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY MOST CORNER OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS "PARCEL 4" AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4380, PAGE 3511 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE SAME BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY MOST CORNER OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS "PARCEL 117FEE" AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4901, PAGE 28 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 35°34'22" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LAST OF SAID LANDS; A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO NORTHWESTERLY MOST CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 117FEE" AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 35°34'22" EAST, ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL 4", A DISTANCE OF 390.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF "PARCEL 4", "PARCEL 3" AND "PHASE 2 REMAINDER", ALL OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4380, PAGE 3511, A DISTANCE OF 896.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID "PHASE 2 REMAINDER"; THENCE SOUTH 35°34'22" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID "PHASE 2 REMAINDER", A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY MOST CORNER OF SAID "PHASE 2 REMAINDER"; THENCE NORTH 54°35'38" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID "PHASE 2 REMAINDER" AND SAID "PARCEL 3", A DISTANCE OF 524.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY MOST CORNER OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS "PARCEL 118FEE" AND RECORDED IN SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4901, PAGE 3511 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 35°35'44" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL 118FEE", A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID "PARCEL 118FEE"; THENCE NORTH 54°35'38" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID "PARCEL 118FEE" AND "PARCEL 117FEE", A DISTANCE OF 371.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 354,682 SQUARE FEET OR 8.142 ACRES, MORE OR LESS Home Center Plaza Site Plan with Deviations: Attachment C — Legal Description May 6, 2014 1 www.davidsonengineering.con, Packet Pg. 576 ((ZN) ouozob eBeao}S IIV JOTS - 899ZOOMOZ-1d : BUSZ) suol}oV 6uluoZ aolad - 13 jjV :;uowLj3e}}d - QY o W J Y Z tr g a�N O Q �OH ➢ d R paR B A Pit d?t v gg aldFt 8 BCE_ F g diji! VaDq gi d saEy4`E q<5 L Ei g g;! .. 33 deb§ gg ��lk n� INIIN fit it t1R� o spa 35�p4fa .N i'5 I ra z N (Z Lu t1 L Q � V �Q J CU W C n =C m pTf "- O i+�g X4 i� f LLJ I o ' a a -- EELLJ ((ZM) GUOZOIJ OBBJO;S 11V JOTS - 8S9Z000ZOZ-ld 8£6SZ) SU0113 y BUIUO 2 a �w t`� 3 L m u m aw s C, ra n 00 �3 Z a. ,F 11 � A I i I r I I} 3a Ci I I mI I cs Cr-.1 DAWCIX; O I T i I _ 1 1 Y C .-- -- -T. � � I � i 1 I I F 8 a 1 I g I Z JOud - 8 14V :luaLULl3B V 00 h LO a I U a a xa b� 2 J V p N o G 40 M � �1 ACC Q� Q F..I r-, L w IWI y ((Z2{) OUOZOI{ 06BJOIS Il"d JOTS - 899Z000ZOZ-1d : 8USZ) SUOROV 6UIUOZ JOiJd - 8 11b :;u8wt4OeWV • � Ntlld Alit; bdl"vy ^'•'•'°•";Z=6C voecseo uao t-. ONV SNOUIONOO E)NIlSIX3�TI'a p?rosdi v'Oovoa Nola3mNI83LLa3dWVZVld N31N3O 3WOH 'l�3fOttl I I i �I i e6 Im zlI' !I . I II �1 i I Ir� I I uj m' I'I, I' I - •III -I 1 i �I I I. , I•I ± , I I IIII II I , LI, I I i t ill � I il'11 I I �i i 4Z I rl 4 yl, _�_ 1l I I I aL `N I i ._lay I , II o • II ! .� I I fJ�� I, �W • a j I; o �.. . .. ..-.. . � � 4��' T.rS=� pD�•yba�-t _ _ �1 lk I I I am i j ' I I I Q of 1 V) Ri 9 11 I � I a W� I `' 3t • laa i! I I oib n3 ¢ I c I O oz I o y; I ' I I ; I I I i I ------ I —--------r— 0 ! z I ! LU I O t— I NLLJ , I I I II d r w I I I 7— 3 ((ZN) OUOZON OBeJOIS IIV JOTS - 899Z000ZOZld : 8£45Z) SUOROd BUIUOZ JOIJd - 9 OV :;uauay:)ellV k W I 1� W M f m� } r� rr 1 O Z O U W U dtn OZ i W O CCJ W IK W= KxU-O Q o a- FW- a HMdLo zz> Tm U.-VN[.Y �0 -0U wW0 ~ w O LL U� am CY o i z < J ` a I I I I I I M I I I I I I i I I CD I I J i j 1 I I gl n �a .m � �, � I •, I P� �F r �- O Ld rK 0 I I W ta.l 0 I I W-m x �j I 'I 1 4SJLo� W I I f I CJ -J r- O LL z� I � ¢ v: dJ1 I I I r 1- a �a O / YY t;- LLI I i. < W W Z J I I Ll I F-I •� cn 3 I OU�wU C O0¢ <00Uzuzz R I h l 1 c I I 92 v 0 0 LO 6 a m u m a ..�-.i» .0..M _ � : X � � -M...... m -.* 8Y OTHERS � 9.AAc Turn Around area (tits` x #fit ") 52,v General area of shared parking and turn around Eft BERMr OP EL, 6-50 i cn t!? 60, a r it Exhibit C i A I ILZ all ... FEW f i � � r to ! M • 1 IN . r� i et Pg. 581 • 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) PRE -APPLICATION MEETING NOTES Packet Pg. 582 9.A.4.d Co -ier County r. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountvfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Assigned Planner: Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: _Rezone (RZ ) Date and Time: Tuesday 11/2/21 at 3:00 PM - SKYPE Gabriela Castro Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information ProjectName: Stor-All Storage Rezone (RZ) PL#: 20210002658 726040001 PropertylD#: 725960001 Current Zoning: C-3 Project Address: City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34114 Applicant: Paula McMichael, AICP,VP Hole Montes, Inc. Agent Name: same Phone: 239-254-2018 Agent/Firm Address: 950 Encore Way City: Naples Property Owner: Stor-All Tamiami Trail, LLC Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: 6 + / - ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: State: FL Zip: 34110 V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 1 of 5 N 0 N a� a� �a L a L co LO W N O 0 0 r N O N J a. 0 M LO N Packet Pg. 583 9.A.4.d C01146r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountyfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note - link is https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093 r PIJIF -7n &nQ C- - A , I-; , . CA 7 S.Q A-T��h�� �wtI. PJdT�S �ti►lC o�r�„�,I� _,1- If Site is within the City of Naples Water Service Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then, if the petition Is submitted, we are to send it (by email) to the four persons below in their Utilities and Planning Depts. - along with a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton RMiddleton@naplesgoy.com Allyson Holland AMHolland(d,)naplesgov.com Robin Singer RSinger(@-naplesgov.com Erica Martin emartinCo',naplesgoy.com Disclaimer- Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and,LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 584 ThomasClarkeVEN From: OrtmanEric Sent: Friday, November 05, 2021 11:48 AM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: Pre-App Notes for Stor-All Storage PL20210002658 1. Describe how project is consistent with: FLUE Objective 5 — Policies 5.3, 5.4, and 5.6; and FLUE Objective 7 — Policies 1-4 inclusive 2. Address the FLUE Mixed -Use Activity Center factors a thru i with specific attention to c — market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land use. 3. Include a straight-line rendering. 4. Reach out to the East Naples Civic Association to inform them of the proposed project. Co[[iier Corinty Collier County Growth Manaeement Department Principal Planner, Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Direct line: (239) 252-1032 Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl.gov Visit our Webiste at: WWW.COLLIER0OUNTYFL.GOV Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Information contained in this email is subject to verification by the Zoning Manager and/or Planning Director; if this information is being used as a basis for the purchase/lease of a property or as a guide for the design of a project, it is recommended that a Zoning Verification Letter or Zoning Certificate Application is submitted to zoning services. Applications for a Zoning Verification Letter can be found here: https://www.colliercountyfl.goy/home/showdocument?id=69624 Zoning Certificate applications can be found here: https:/Iwww.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-f- r/operations-regulatory-management/zoning-or-land-use-application/zoning-other-land-use-applications . g__ ?.4 Packet Pg. 585 9.A.4.d `, Co(f ler County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountvfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes _CwtJi2��,IYN��rg� — C444) aAlXt.w— S,,O- (2MHL� f-L11,2S -- P!1-1.,10— :5.4. Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Disclaimer., Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 586 9.A.4.d ThomasClarkeVEN From: BrownCraig Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2021 5:51 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: RE: Pre-App Research for Stor-All Storage Rezone (RZ) - PL20210002658 - virtual meeting Tuesday 11/2/21 at 3:00 PM Thomas, Indicate how much preservation has been established with a note on the site Plan. The preserve requirement has been met by plat (OR 3989 Pages 591-596). Address CCME Policy 6.1.1 No environmental data needed with this one the site is mostly developed. Craig Brown Senior Environmental Speciali Development Review Division (239) 252-2548. How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! From: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 12:13 PM To: AshtonHeidi <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Beard Laurie <Laurie.Beard@colliercountyfl.gov>; BrownCraig <Craig.Brown @colliercountyfl.gov>; CookJaime <Jaime.Cook@colliercountyfl.gov>; CrotteauKathynell <Kathynell.Crotteau@colliercountyfl.gov>; PerryDerek <Derek.Perry@colliercountyfl.gov>; OrtmanEric <Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl.gov>; FaulknerSue <Sue.Faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov>; FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov>; MedinaJosephine <Josephine.Medina @colliercountyfl.gov>; MoscaMichele <Michele.Mosca@colliercountyfl.gov>; OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>; KlopfParker <Parker.Klopf@colliercountyfl.gov>; PollarclBrandi <Brandi.Pollard@colliercountyfl.gov>; AshkarSally <Sally.Ashkar@colliercountyfl.gov>; SawyerMichael <Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov>; ColeTabatha <Tabatha.Cole@colliercountyfl.gov>; TempletonMark <Mark.Templeton@colliercountyfl.gov>; WilkieKirsten <Kirsten.Wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: CastroGabriela <Gabriela.Castro@colliercountyfl.gov>; YoungbloodAndrew <Andrew.Youngblood@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pre-App Research for Stor-All Storage Rezone (RZ) - PL20210002658 - virtual meeting Tuesday 11/2/21 at 3:00 PM Good Afternoon All, Please review the attached Zoning Pre-App Research for Stor-All Storage Rezone (RZ)-PL20210002658. Packet Pg. 587 9.A.4.d ThomasClarkeVEN From: SawyerMichael Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2021 3:31 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: Stor-All Rezone pre app this afternoon. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thomas, Please check the TIS required box on the pre app checklist as well as methodology on the next page with a note that methodology will be by email to staff. Please also add the following notes: Transportation Planning: Methodology meeting by email required and provide note on TIS cover sheet that fee will be collected at time of Rezone submittal. Address all transportation elements of the GMP. Provide both ITE and SIC use codes in the TIS. Provide trip limit based on TIS using standard language: "The maximum total daily trip generation for the Rezone shall not exceed 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." Respectfully, Michael Sawyer Principal Planner Growth Management Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 239-252-2926 michael.sawyera,colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Packet Pg. 588 9.A.4.d ThomasClarkeVEN From: Templeton Mark Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2021 3:38 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: PL20210002658 Stor-All Storage 726040001, 725960001 (RZ) Landscape Notes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Thomas, Below are my comments on this one: Landscape: If rezoning for specific use, label the perimeter landscape buffers. Side buffers are 7.5' Type A. 15' Type 8 along the North. South buffer per plat Respectfully, Mark Templeton, RLA Principal Planner/Landscape Review Co 1e-r County Development Review Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.2475 How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! Disclaimer- this email is not to be interpreted as an endorsement or approval of any permit, plan, project, or deviation from the Land Development Code. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Packet Pg. 589 1 9.A.4.d Codii -r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountyfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL# 20210002658 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email ❑ Maggie Acevedo North Collier Fire 252-2309 macevedo@northcollierfire.com ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@ col IiercountyfLgov ❑ Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown @colliercountyfLgov ❑ Alexandra Casanova Operations Coordinator 252-2658 Alexandra.casanova@collie rcountyfLgov Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfLgov Thomas Clarke Zoning Operations Analyst 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jamie Cook Prin. Environmental Specialist 252-6290 Jai me.cook@colliercountyfLgov Gabriela Castro Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gabriela.castro@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Maggie DeMeo North Collier Fire 252-2308 pdemeo@northcollierfire.com Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jeremy Frantz LDC Manager 252-2305 Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov �d Cormac Giblin, AICP Development Review -Planning Manager 252-5095 Cormac.giblin@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Nancy Gundlach, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Richard Henderlong Zoning Principal Planner 252-2464 richard.henderlong@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Anita Jenkins Planning & Zoning Director 252-5095 Anita.jenkins@collie rcountyfLgov ❑ John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Parker Klopf Zoning Senior Planner 252-2471 Parker.klopf@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Troy Komarowski North Collier Fire 252-2521 tkomarowski@northcollierfire.com ❑ Sean Lintz North Collier Fire 597-9227 slintz@northcollierfire.com ❑ Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 1 252-8243 1 diane.lynch @colIiercountyfLgov [I Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 590 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercountyfl.gov C: oibr County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 ❑ Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Josie Medina Comp Plan -Principal Planner 252-2306 Josephine.Medina@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Eric Ortman Zoning Principal Planner 252-1032 Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl.gov 1 Derek Perry Assistant County Attorney 252-8066 Derek.perry@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 bra ndi.pollard@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com ❑ Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ James Sabo, AICP Comp Planning Manager 252-2708 james.sabo@colliercountyfl.gov Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Connie Thomas Client Services Supervisor 252-6369 Consuela.thomas@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jessica Velasco Client Services 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Christine Willoughby Development Review - Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Daniel Zunzunegui North Collier Fire 252-2310 Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email �— tt5 C (,' hat PXA,,iz,, L kt, M , r' ,5:'70/b <qVh&--.,4 cr.C, Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 591 1 9.A.4.d Comer County Growth Management Department Zoning Division Applicant/Agent may also send site plans or conceptual plans for review in advance if desired. PL20210002658 — Stor-All Storage Rezone (RZ) Planner: TBD�01/ ewila Assigned Ops Staff: Thomas Clarke STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION • Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request Paula McMichael, AICP, VP/Hole Montes, Inc. (239-254-2018) • Agent to list for PL# Paula McMichael, AICP & Bob Mulhere, FAICP • Owner of property (all owners for all parcels) Parcels: 00726040001 and 00725960001 - Stor-All Tamiami Trail, LLC • Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: (Rezone, etc.) The applicant is requesting a conventional rezone of the subject property, approximately 6 acres, from C-3 to C- 5 to allow for the construction of a self -storage facility. • Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that apply): N/A • Details about Project: The applicant is requesting a conventional rezone of the subject property, approximately 6 acres, from C-3 to C- 5 to allow for the construction of a self -storage facility. REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by: Name: Paula McMichael, AICP Title: Vice President Email: Paulamcmichael@hmeng.com Phone: 239-254-2018 Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Connie Thomas -Client Services Supervisor Consuela.Thomas@colliercountyfl.gov Phone:239-252-2473 Created April 5, 2017 Location: G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zoning Staff Information Zoning Division - 2800 North Horseshoe Drive - Naples, Florida 34104.239-252-2400 • ruwww.cd6ergov.net Packet Pg. 592 9.A.4.d GO-Mer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Standard Rezone Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW SPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Pre -Application meeting notes 1 Project Narrative 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Utility Provisions Statement with sketches 1 ❑ Signed and Sealed Survey 1 Conceptual Site Plan 1 Architectural Rendering ❑ List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 1 Warranty Deeds 1 Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys 1 ❑ Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. ❑ ❑ Historical Survey or waiver request 1 Traffic Impact Statement, with applicable fees -- A-r z Sug,u,ii n 1 School Impact Analysis Application — residential projects only 1 Electronic copy of all documents and plans 1 ^ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement 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." 09/28/217 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 593 0 9.A.4.d Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following additional reviewers: -, t A Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director Historical Review City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director El Immokalee Water/Sewer District: Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson E I Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams and David Berra Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ Other: ❑ Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS M Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre -application meeting will be required) Rezone Petition (regular): $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) / o Additional Fee for 5th and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee [� Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $750.00 ❑ Listed/Protected Species Survey: $1,000.00 Estimated Legal Advertising: o CCPC- $1,125.00 o BCC- $500.00 iY Transportation Fee: / mao-r'uA 4-06Y 11;; 8 3f 0X%Ad1L_ is 5baFF o Methodology Review: $500.00 (Additional fees to be determined at Methodology meeting) �1 [VC School Concurrency Review: If required, to be determined by the School District in coordination with 1 the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner Signature Applicant/Owner Name (please print) Date 09/28/217 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 594 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) STANDARD REZONE APPLICATION Packet Pg. 595 9.A.4.d Coer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STANDARD REZONE APPLICATION LDC Section 10.02.08 Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code PROJECT NO PROJECT NAME To be completed bystoff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): Stor-All Tamiami Trail, LLC Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address: 141 SE 1 st Street Telephone: 954-421-1196 Cell: .City: Deerfield Beach State: FL N/A Fax: N/A E-Mail Address: markb@Stor-all.com; fpardo@fpadesign.com ZIP: 33441 Name of Agent: Paula N. C. McMichael, AICP, VP & Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President Firm: Hole Montes, Inc. Address: 950 Encore Way Telephone: 239-254-2000 City: Naples Cell: N/A State: FL ZIP:34110 Fax: 239-254-2099 E-Mail Address: paulamcmichael@hmeng.com; bobmulhere@hmeng.com PROPERTYO Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application, if space is inadequate, attach on separate page: • 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: _j__/jLLj26E Lot: Block: Subdivision: See Survey Plat Book: Page # 09/28/2017 Property I.D. Number: 00725960001 & 00726040001 Page 1 of 8 Packet Pg. 596 9.A.4.d cot 14er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 660± 390± 260,48 9± 5.54± Size of Property: ft. x ft. _ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: Address/ General Location of Subject Property: North side of Tamiami Trail East, approx. 500 feet east of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Blvd. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N PUD Residential (Falling Waters) S CPUD Tamiami Trail East/Commercial Shopping Center E C-5 Storage and Warehousing W C-3 ST Pharmacy/Convenience Store (CVS) If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page) Section/Township/Range: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: C-3 Zoning district(s) to the Present Use of the Property: Vacant C-5 zoning district(s). Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the subject property: Self -storage facility & full range of C-5 uses Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. 09/28/217 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 597 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Co h� r County ASSOCIATIONS 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Requirement: 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: East Naples Civic Association, 8595 Collier Blvd., Suite 104 Mailing Address: PMB #49 City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34114 Name of Homeowner Association: Falling Waters Beach Resort Master Association, Inc. Mailing Address: P.o. Box 214 City: Estero State: FL ZIP: 33929 Name Of Homeowner Association: Falling Waters Beach Resort I c/o Paramont Property Management, LLC Mailing Address: 5629 Strand Blvd., Suite412 City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34110 Name of Homeowner Association: Falling Waters Beach Resort II c/o Estero Property Management Mailing Address: P.O. Box 214 City: Estero State: FL Zip: 33929 Name of Homeowner Association: Falling Waters Beach Resort III c/o Cambridge Management of SW FL, Inc. Mailing Address: 2335 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 402 City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34103 Falling Waters Beach Resort IV c/o Estero Property Management, PO Box 214, Estero, FL 33929 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.02.08, staff's 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, please provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. See attached Evaluation Criteria 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map and elements of the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of 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 for the proposed change. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) when necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. 8, Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. 09/28/217 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 598 9.A.4.d Co' &r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 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. 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]. 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. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? No. 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 F No if so please provide copies. 09/28/217 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 599 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.coiliergov.net Cagier County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR STANDARD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s)• Stor-All Tamiami Trail,LLC Address: 141 SE 1 st Street Telephone: 954-421-1196 City: Deerfield Beach State: FL ZIP: 33441 Cell: N/A Fax: N/A E-Mail Address: markb@Stor-all.com; fpardo@fpadesign.com Address of Subject Property (If available): City: Naples State: FL ZIP. 34114 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Section/Township/Range: 3 51 S / 26E Lot: Block: Subdivision: N/A Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: S S 00725960001 & 00726040001 Metes & Bounds Description: ee Urvey TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System d. Package Treatment Plant e. Septic System Provide Name: (GPD Capacity): TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: 800 warehousing units and restaurant operating more than 16 hours per day with 100 seats/ Peak and Average Daily Demands: / two 100- seat restaurants with A. Water -Peak: 11,648/21,840 GPD AverageDail 8 960/16,800GPD Y� _' no warehousing B. Sewer -Peak: 19/35 GPM Average Daily: 6,400/12,000 GPD 09/28/217 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 600 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net CoO T County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: June 2023 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. There are existing sewer connections available, as demonstrated by SPDI PL 20200001750. 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. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 H. 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 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. 09/28/217 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 601 9.A.4.d Project Capacity - RESIDENTIAL A = Type of Unit B = Number of C = Population D = Total E = Per Capita F = Total G = Peak hour Units per Unit Population Flow (gpd) Average Daily flow (gpm) (B x C) Flow (gpd) (D x E) Residence* 2.5 0 100 0 0.0 *100 gal/day per person and 2.5 people per household = 250 GPD per residential unit per Collier County Design Criteria, Part 2 "Wastewater Collection and Transmission Systems" Peak Factor = 18 + (p)1/2 4 + (P)1/2 P= 0.000 (total population / 1000) Peak Factor (PF) =1 4.5 Note: Peak factor calculation per 10 State Standards. 3/30/2018 CCPU Wastewater Flow Worksheets Packet Pg. 602 9.A.4.d Project Capacity - COMMERCIAL Type of Establishment # Units GPD/Unit GPD Food operations, Restaurant operating more than 16 hours per day, per seat 200 60 12,000 Subtotal 12,000 Total Average Total Peak Total Peak Daily Flow Peak Factor Hour Flow Hour Flow (GPD) (GPD) (GPM) 12,000 4.2 50,653 35.2 3/27/2018 CCPU Wastewater Flow Worksheets Packet Pg. 603 9.A.4.d Project Capacity - INSTITUTIONAL Type of Establishment # Units GPD/Unit GPD Subtotal 0 Total Average Total Peak Total Peak Daily Flow Peak Factor Hour Flow Hour Flow (GPD) (GPD) (GPM) 0 4.5 0 0.0 3/27/2018 CCPU Wastewater Flow Worksheets Packet Pg. 604 9.A.4.d Project Capacity - MIXED USE A = Type of Unit B = Number of Units C = Population per Unit D = Total Population (B x C) E = Per Capita Flow (gpd) F = Total Average Daily Flow (gpd) (D x E) G = Peak hour flow (gpm) Residential* 0 2.5 0 100 0 0 Commercial** 120 100 12,000 35 Institutional** 0 100 0 0 TOTAL 120 100 12,000 35 *100 gal/day per person and 2.5 people per household = 250 GPD per residential unit per Collier County Design Criteria, Part 2 "Wastewater Collection and Transmission Systems" **Use population equivalent based on average daily flow. Peak Factor = 18 + (P)1/2 -r , ,. , P= 0.120 (total population / 1000) Peak Factor (PF) = 4.2 Note: Peak factor calculation per 10 State Standards. 3/27/2018 CCPU Wastewater Flow Worksheets Packet Pg. 605 9.A.4.d 64E-6.008 System Size Determinations (1) Minimum design flows for systems serving any structure, building or group of buildings shall be based on the estimated daily sewage flow as determined from previous tabs. (a) The DOH county health department shall accept, for other than residences and food operations, metered water use data in lieu of the estimated sewage flows set forth in Table I. For metered flow consideration, the applicant shall provide authenticated monthly water use data documenting water consumption for the most recent 12 month period for at least six similar establishments. Similar establishments are those like size operations engaged in the same type of business or service, which are located in the same type of geographic environment, and which have approximately the same operating hours. Metered flow values will not be considered to be a reliable indicator of typical water use where one or more of the establishments utilized in the sample has exceeded the monthly flow average for all six establishments by more than 25 percent or where the different establishments demonstrate wide variations in monthly flow totals. When metered flow data is accepted in lieu of estimated flows found in Table I, the highest flow which occurred in any month for any of the six similar establishments shall be used for system sizing purposes. Except for food operations which exceed domestic sewage waste quality parameters as defined in subsection 64E-6.002(15), F.A.C., where an existing establishment which has been in continuous operation for the previous 24 months seeks to utilize its own metered flows, the applicant shall provide authenticated monthly water use data documenting water consumption for the most recent 24 month period. The highest monthly metered flow value for an existing establishment shall be used for system sizing purposes. (b) When onsite systems use multiple strategies to reduce the total estimated sewage flow or the drainfield size, only one reduction method shall be credited. Footnotes 1. For food operations, kitchen wastewater flows shall normally be calculated as 66 percent of the total establishment wastewater flow. 2. Systems serving high volume establishments, such as restaurants, convenience stores and service stations located near interstate type highways and similar high -traffic areas, require special sizing consideration due to expected above average sewage volume. Minimum estimated flows for these facilities shall be 3.0 times the volumes determined from the Table I figures. 3. For residences, the volume of wastewater shall be calculated as 50 percent blackwater and 50 percent graywater. 4. Where the number of bedrooms indicated on the floor plan and the corresponding building area of a dwelling unit in Table I do not coincide, the criteria which will result in the greatest estimated sewage flow shall apply. 5. Convenience store estimated sewage flows shall be determined by adding flows for food outlets and service stations as appropriate to the products and services offered. Packet Pg. 606 9.A.4.d 6. Estimated flows for residential systems assumes a maximum occupancy of two persons per bedroom. Where residential care facilities will house more than two persons in any bedroom, estimated flows shall be increased by 50 gallons per each additional occupant. Packet Pg. 607 9.A.4.d PART 2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS All wastewater pipe, material, equipment and appurtenances shall be new, and shall conform to Section 2, Technical Specifications and Section 3, Utilities Detail Drawings. Wastewater systems shall be designed to maintain adequate flows and standards as established by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), using the equivalent residential connection (ERC) value of 250 gallons per day per residential unit (broken down to 100 gallons per day per person and 2.5 people per household) and F.A.C. 64E-6.008 for nonresidential. All wastewater projects shall be designed to preclude the deliberate introduction of storm water, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, swimming pool drainage, air conditioning system condensate water, non -contact cooling water, and sources of uncontaminated wastewater as specified in F.A.C. Chapter 62-610 and comply with Ordinance 2012-13 "Collier County Industrial Pretreatment Ordinance." Special attention shall be given to gravity lines that receive flows from wastewater transmission or re -pumping facilities. Due care shall be taken in these cases to ensure that no surcharge conditions occur downstream due to excessive flow rates. Under no conditions shall pipe of a diameter larger than that necessary for proper hydraulic design as determined by the COUNTY Growth Management Division or Public Utilities Planning and Project Management Department be permitted for use on any project. Packet Pg. 608 y c m Ln v V) O ri IIV JOTS - 9S9Z000LZOZ-1d : 9£LSZ) sooa dn-mc)ee adaa OUOZOM OBe.ao;S II`d-ao;S -:D IIV :lUGWL]OeIIV O _ _ o 0 _ N N O -p v C O m L C_ N O n, a O o rn a n '" 3 a o 0 e o i LL t 3 M W IA -. G n n Ln LLJ Z Q u Ln LL > ZCI Q0 — '3 } 2 7 u �b Z o Z O p5—. 0= �a�d � O n Y ? c w F-v O a 3 ry v c yS --_p p 0 p c s 3 LL n lD 0 a a 3 d a, a 3 rs;; > c c 0 d m c o x� i � � �3 •� �W a c cui LL" 7 O it ` 0 c N £ Q = Y d X .t" Cl o 0 0 � 3 > p (0 L C N o M V f0 N y y � av p 00 vi i I 0 q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1 any ugisaO pJAIjnOH lead b JO 011" 0 0 CD 6 a m m a 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Collky County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Standard Rezone Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Pre -Application meeting notes 1 ✓ Project Narrative 1 ✓ Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Utility Provisions Statement VAtWs3 1 ✓ Signed and Sealed Survey 1 �/ Conceptual Site Plan 1 �/ Architectural Rendering List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation Lzi Warranty Deeds 1 Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 V/ Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous 1 Elsurveys Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. ❑ 0✓ ❑ Historical Survey or waiver request 1 Traffic Impact Statement, with applicable fees 1 V/ School Impact Analysis Application — residential projects only 1 Electronic copy of all documents and plans 1 �/ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement 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." 09/28/217 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 610 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CAT County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following additional reviewers: Bays hore/G ateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director ❑ Historical Review ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams and David Berra ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay ❑ School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ I Other: ❑ Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS [N Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre -application meeting will be required) PS Rezone Petition (regular): $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) o Additional Fee for 5" and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee Pg Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $750.00 ❑ Listed/Protected Species Survey: $1,000.00 9 Estimated Legal Advertising: o CCPC- $1,125.00 o BCC- $500.00 IH Transportation Fee: o Methodology Review: $500.00 (Additional fees to be determined at Methodology meeting) ❑ School Concurrency Review: If required, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/ wner Signature Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President/CEO Applicant/Owner Name (please print) 09/28/217 -DZZ Date Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 611 9.A.4.d AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S). PL-2021 1, &t+ —SAIL "enay, (print name), as (title, If applicable) of _Sisr—sill 'ramieLCC (company, If a licable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner0 applicantQcontract purchaserLiand that: 1, I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County In accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions In this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3, 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions Imposed by the approved action. b. Well authorize PAULA M. C. MCMICHAEL, AICPP,, VPP a RCBERT J, MULHERE, FACIP, PRES, to act a5 our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 'Notes: • if the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the core. pres. or v. pres, • If the applicant Is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C,) or Limited Company (L.C,), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member, " • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant Is a trust, then they must Include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee", • In each Instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated In it are true. Signature Date STATE FLORIDA COUNTY OF CDl}t E Brdtu trl ThG foregoing 'nstrument was acknowieged before me by means ofXU physical presence or © online notarization this day of ar , 2022--, by (printed name of owner orIlfler) Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: Are personally known to me [� Has produced a current drivers license © Has produced as Identification. Notary Signature; CP\08-COA-00115\155 REV 3/4/2020 y Notary Public Stale of Florida Mark BergquistMy CommisaioF HH 097166 Explrei'07124120a5 Packet Pg. 612 STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE 9.A.4.d (PL-20210002658) PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM Packet Pg. 613 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.coil1ergov.net Co Y County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the I01 ra] ercentage or sucn interesi: Name and Address % of Ownership N/A If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the 'CI I.CIIItlraC UI JLUI.K UWIICu Uy uclull. Name and Address % of Ownership N/A If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the lercentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership N/A Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 614 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net e f 9. Co Y County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 Stor-All Tamiami Trail, LLC, 141 SE 1st Street, Deerfield Bch, FL 33441 *PS Florida One, Inc., 701 Western Ave., Glendale, CA 91201 (MGRM) 85% **Stor-All Renaissance, LLC 15% *Publicly traded company; ** Jeff Anderson 50% & Larry Anderson 50% 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 C '111L.CI J, JLU[_l',I IU1UCI J, UCI ICI MdI [Ub, UI Pd[LF ItIS.- Na me and Address % of Ownership N/A Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or of I IL.CI ), II a L.VI PU1 dLIL/III PCl1 LI ICI JI H P I 111 Lf UJL. Name and Address N/A Date subject property acquired 12/6/2019 0 Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 615 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Date of option: Date option terminates: Anticipated closing date: Cot ter County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 or AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package, I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 E , ..� 7-27-2022 Agent/Owner Signature Date Paula N.C. McMichael, AICP, VP Agent/Owner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 616 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION Packet Pg. 617 9.A.4.d FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION PL-20210002658 I, &t+ ` Ah "en&N print name), as (title, if applicable) of S+xr-All Trtwlta�rsi rai LCC. (company, If a plicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner0applicant =contract purchaser"and that: 1, 1 have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions Imposed by the approved action. 55. Well authorize PAULA M. C. MCMICHAEL, AICP, VP & ROBERT J, MULHERE, FACIP, PRES, to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • if the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member. " • if the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true. Signature Date STATE��FLORIDA COUNTY OF EW Brdtl OA TheL foregoing Instrument was acknowleged before me by means ofX physical presence or 0 online notarization this day of av 20ZZ by (printed name of owner orlifier) Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: Are personally known to me Has produced a current drivers license Has produced as Identification. Notary Signature; CPW&COA-001151155 REV 3/4/2020 +P Notary Public State of Florida Mark Bergquist K r My Commission HH 097166 aM1 M1Expire602124/2028' Packet Pg. 618 9.A.4.d CERTIFICATE OF THE MEMBERS OF STOR-ALL TAMIAMI TRAIL, LLC The undersigned, Nathaniel A. Vitan, hereby certifies that he is the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of PS Florida One, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("PS"), with access to the books and records of PS, and its affiliates. The undersigned, Jeffrey M. Anderson, hereby certifies that he is the Manager of JMA Family Investments, LLC, which is the Manager of Stor-All Renaissance LLC, which is the Manager of Stor-AlI Tamiami Trail, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Stor-All"), with access to the books and records of Stor-All and its affiliates. The undersigned hereby certify on behalf of their respective entities that: l . Stor-All Tamiami Trail, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Company"), is the owner of record of that certain property located at 13100 Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL (the "Property"). 2. Pursuant to that certain Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Company dated November 6, 2017 (as may have been amended, the "LLC Agreement"): (i) PS and Stor-All are the Members of the Company; (ii) PS is the Manager of the Company and, as Manager, is authorized and empowered to act on behalf of the Company; and (iii) Stor-All may exercise the power and authority of Manager of the Company solely for certain limited purposes relating to the entitlement and development of the Property, and is authorized and empowered to act on behalf of the Company in such capacity. Subject to the terms and conditions of the LLC Agreement, any one of (a) Bert John Anderson (a/k/a John Anderson), Jeffrey Anderson or Larry Anderson, on behalf of Stor-All, in its capacity as Manager of the Company for the limited purposes described above, or (b) Andres Friedman, Sharon Linder or Joseph Tomlinson, on behalf of PS, in its capacity as Manager of the Company, is, acting alone, authorized to execute and deliver any and all documents reasonably required by the City, County or State where the Property is located (or any of their respective departments or political subdivisions) in connection with the entitlement and development of the Property as a self -storage facility, including: all applications, pre -application submittals, permits, notices (including commencement and completion notices), letters, authorizations (including letters of authorization), easements, dedications, covenants, declarations, agreements, bonds, certificates, and such other related or similar municipal, county or state documents or forms required in connection with the foregoing purposes. 4. This certificate remains in effect until a notice or certificate of revocation is issued. -remainder of page intentionally blank,- signature page follows - PS #00121— 13100 Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida Page] of 3 Packet Pg. 619 9.A.4.d IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed this certificate on this �fhday of March, 2022. Nathaniel A. Vitan Secretary of PS Florida One, Inc. A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) S.S. On MarCh h U2,2, , before me, Sarah You, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared, Nathaniel A. Vitan, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the sarne in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, such person, or the entity upon behalf of which such person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: -signatures continue next page - PS #00121— 13100 Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida Page 2 of 3 ^�{��►'� sa,E.� you 1 !. _ Notary pudic - California - "_•; '-' Los A•11ele5 County h i+�"• Cocimssicn = 2305642 (Notary Seal) Packet Pg. 620 9.A.4.d Jeffrey M. Anderson Manager of JMA Family Investments, LLC, the manager of Stor-All Renaissance LLC, the manager of SAR Tamiami Trail, LC STATE OF FL RIDA II COUNTY OF PdWafd The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of I�J physical presence or ❑ online notarization, this day of A , 2020, by Jeffrey M. Anderson, as Manager of JMA Family Investments, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the entity, who is either [ ] personally known to me or who [ ] produced (type of identification) as iden— tifcation. Notary Public State of Florida Mark Bergquist My Commission HH WIN R Expires 02/24/2025 Notary Public: %k &iwi Print Name: Mark I, O go4i � My Commission Expires: �tj 24 2 Personally Known (OR) Produced Identification Type of identification produced PS #00121— 13100 Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 621 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED Packet Pg. 622 INSTR 5801375 OR 5704 PG 1692 E-RECORDED 12/10/2019 2:08 PM PAGES 5 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $15,050.00 REC $44.00 CONS $2,150,000.00 9.A.4.d This Instrument prepared by: Mark K. Somerstein, Esq. Greenspoon Marder LLP 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 THIS INDENTURE-,=rria, ' effective this _�_ day of Cep , 2019 by ROOK AT NAPLES II, LLC, a Florida lirni d liability company, having an address at 4828 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia 3'38 (hereinafter called the "Grantor"), in favor of STOR-ALL TAMIAMI TRAIL, LLC, a Delaw re�lfr ited liability company, having an address at 141 SE 1st Street, Deerfield Beach, Florida 3344.1`(�!�-rreinafter called the "Grantee"). (Wherever used here r}� th'e,,;ferms "grantor' and "grantee" shall include singular and pI rat`he7tpl'i-legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and the sucessbr and assigns of corporations, wherever the context so admit sr uires) WITNES�5,;rH: THAT GRANTOR, for and in consideration of ; e SUm of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration to Grantor in an pard byaGrantee, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to Grant, d Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying "a"nd being in Florida, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part-hpre9f ("Property"). SUBJECT TO: (i) Taxes and assessments for the year20.19 arld subsequent years; (ii) zoning, restrictions, prohibitions, and other requirements impped b governmental authority without intent to reimpose same; (iii) restrictions and mattr9. pearing on the Plat or otherwise common to the subdivision; (iv) public utility easement Co. re ord; and (v) those matters set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto without serving to rerm�o e same. TOGETHER WITH all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenarbs thereto belonging or in otherwise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that it has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that it hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under the Grantor. 29552.0095 41855814.2 Packet Pg. 623 OR 5704 PG 1693 9.A.4.d IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence GRANTOR: ROOK AT NAPLES II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company STATE OF COUNTY OFCKA�C3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this cfPy, aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to takE acknowledged before me byEM%I,'00 lkcridirfz, Florida limited liability company, who is p as WITNESS my hand and official seal in the Co ,L,f"P rAb V- 2019. ni N My Commission Expires �i1101 P WZ441, s . ..�� ■fir • r �:. L�JiL� ' me, an officer duly authorized in the State Nledgm nts, the foregoing instrument was Bwr°Z �f ROOK AT NAPLES II, LLC, a y known to me or who has produced ors GRANTOR(S) SIGNATURE PAGE 29552.0095 41855814.2 lasjAfdresaid this �o - day of of Notary Public Packet Pg. 624 OR 5704 PG 1694 9.A.4.d EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCELI: Being a parcel •of lafid lying in the North 1/2 of Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florid , iA'more particularly described as follows: COMMENCE at the. S.du hwesterly most corner of those certain lands described as "Parcel 4" and recorded in Officiar° _ ' rds`Book 4380, Page 3511, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, the same being the Southei"teAy most corner of those certain lands described as "Parcel 117FEE" and recorded in Official Records Book 4901, Page 28, of said Public Records; thence North 35134'22" East, along the Northwesterly line of yasf f said lands, a distance of 10.00 feet to Northwesterly most corner of said "Parcel 117Fee" anti t>i ' OINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel of land herein described; thence continue North 3513412-V East, along the boundary of said "Parcel 4", a distance of 390.00 feet to the most Northwesterly cornerrf; said "Parcel 4"; thence South 54125'38" East, along the Northeasterly boundaries of "Parcel,,Ft'' "°Parcel 3" and "Phase 2 Remainder", all of said Official Records Book 4380, Page 3511, a diste of 896.00 feet to the most Northeasterly corner of said "Phase 2 Remainder"; thence South 35 4' 'Nest, along the Southeasterly boundary of said "Phase 2 Remainder", a distance of 400.00 feet t4 toullheasterly most corner of said "Phase 2 Remainder"; thence North 54125138" West, along the S tl wisferly boundaries of said "Phase 2 Remainder" and said "Parcel 3", a distance of 524.21 feet t thi outheasterly most corner of those certain lands described as "Parcel 118FEE" and recorded in U( icial Records Book 4901, Page 28, of said Public Records; thence North 35135142" East, along the: S asterly boundary of said "Parcel 118FEE", a distance of 10.00 feet to the most Northeaster y,eot 0r�.of said "Parcel 118FEE"; thence North 54125'38" West, along the Northeasterly boundaries of sa* Parcel 118FEE" and "Parcel 117FEE11, a distance of 371.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING • `. Together with all of Owner's right, title and interest insa# 0 hat certain Reciprocal Easement Agreement dated July 3, 2008 and recorded July 7, 2008 in O M601 Records Book 4376, Page 402, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. and t Together with those certain perpetual easements for access, drainage and filities pursuant to that certain Declaration for Covenants, Restrictions, and Easements for HoIIi �-ent&laza, as recorded in Official Records Book 5090, Page 2911, of the Public Records of Collier 616' ty,� orida. .:4• 29552.0095 41855814.2 Packet Pg. 625 OR 5704 PG 1695 9.A.4.d EXHIBIT "B" 1. Easements to Florida Power & Light Company establishing ten foot wide easements for overhead and underground electrical utility facilities recorded in Official Records Book 4306, Page 397, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 2. Contribu �OePAIIjd eement between Southern Development Company, Inc., and The Board of �County Cioners of Collier County, Florida, recorded in Official Records Book 3468, Page 2331,of )Records of Collier County, Florida, under which the County agreed to contribute try `tire°4048"ction and installation of certain upsized regional water system facilities. 3. Conservation Easeri't to Collier County for the use and maintenance of a conservation easement recorded in Offici 1 Records Book 3989, Page 591, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 4. Terms and Conditions of"Repiprosal Easement Agreement with CNM Enterprises, LLC, recorded in Official Records Book 43'$I%Je 402, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 5. Joint Operation, Maintenance, :A�� ent Agreement recorded in Official Records Book 4980, Page 706, of the Public RecordQ;P'bliiehCounty, Florida. 6. Resolution No. 2013-183 and No. 20l'3JI94;;r orded in Official Records Book 4965, Page 1660, ,�. of the Public Records of Collier Couri ;Florf&. 7. Notice of Environmental Resource Or Surf4e Water, Management Permit recorded in Official Records Book 4630, Page 3211, of the Publicec%s; f Collier County, Florida. 8. Resolution No. 2014-140 recorded in Official R'oes'lok 5052, Page 3941, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 9. Terms and Conditions of Declaration for Covenants, Restxi ons, and Easements for Home Center Plaza, as recorded in Official Records Book 5090, Page`291, , of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, which contain provisions charges 10. Terms and conditions of any existing unrecorded lease(s), and alli- i Wlessee(s) and any parties claiming through the lessee(s) under the lease(s). 11. Notice of Environmental Resource Permit between South Florida 'Water - nagement District (SFWMD) and Stor-All Naples as recorded in Official Records Book! Pa 25, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 12. Survey prepared by Michael W. Solitro, PLS No. 4458 of Republic National on behalf of Cresurveys, dated under Job Number 191012, reveals the following: (i) Backflow Preventor located on Southwesterly property line; (ii) Parking Area crosses onto Southeasterly portion of subject property; (iii) Storm Manhole sits on and outside Southeasterly property line and within Easement parcel; (iv) Overhead Utility Lines and Utility Poles located Northerly of the Northeasterly property line; (v) Curb Cut and Gate encroach outside Southwesterly property line into Easement parcels; and 29552.0095 41855814.2 Packet Pg. 626 *** OR 5704 PG 1696 *** 9.A.4.d (vi) Various Drainage Inlets, Electric Boxes, Storm Manholes and Signage located within Easement area. 29552.0095 41855814.2 Packet Pg. 627 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) PROJECT NARRATIVE & JUSTIFICATION Packet Pg. 628 9.A.4.d Stor-All Rezone Project Narrative and Justification (PL-20210002658) Introduction This is a request to rezone the subject property from the C-3 Zoning District to the C-5 Zoning District to permit the full range of C-4 uses and, on Lot 2 only, a self -storage facility (motor freight transportation and warehousing, indoor air-conditioned only, SIC 4225). Background The subject site is approximately 5.98 acres in size and located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Blvd., and within Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The subject site was rezoned in 2005 from Ag/C-2-ST to the C-3 Zoning District (Ord. 05-35). In 2014, the site was approved for a Conditional Use Application (Res. 2014-140) to permit food stores with greater than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure; permitted food service with more than 6,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure; and permitted personal services with more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. The approved Conditional Uses was ultimately not developed. The site also has an approved Site Development Plan that demonstrates the required preserve and existing conservation easement (OR 3989, Pages 591-596) that provides 1.68 acres of preserve. The proposed rezone seeks to change the zoning designation of the subject property from the C-3 zoning district to the C-5 zoning district. The rezone request provides a Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) which limits the list of permitted C-5 uses to all uses within the C-4 zoning district, and mini -self storage warehousing (motor freight transportation and warehousing, indoor air- conditioned only, SIC 4225, only Lot 2 only. Adjacent to the east of the subject site is an existing indoor self -storage warehouse, under the same ownership, that was constructed after a similar rezone request was approved (Ord. 2019-05), also with specific conditions of approval. Due to the population increase and the demand for self - storage in this location, the proposed rezone to the C-5 district will permit a necessary expansion of the self -storage facility adjacent to lot 2, as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. The remaining lot (lot 3) of the subject site includes a recorded conservation easement that is approximately one acre. The remaining area of lot 3, approximately one acre, it is estimated to accommodate approximately 4,500 square feet of buildable area for a permitted C-4 use, excluding those uses specifically identified in Exhibit A — Conditions of Approval. Page 1 of 3 H:\2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Narrative and FLUE Justification (rev 11-14-2022).doex Packet Pg. 629 9.A.4.d Adjacent Zoning Direction Zoning FLUE Land Use Subject Property C-3 Urban — Mixed Use Vacant Activity Center # 18 North PUD Urban — Mixed Use Residential Activity Center #18 South CPUD Urban — Mixed Use Tamiami Trail E. / Activity Center #18 Commercial Shopping Center East C-5 Urban Residential — Storage and Mixed Use Activity Warehousing Center # 18 West C-3 ST Urban — Mixed Use Phannacy/Convenience Activity Center #18 Store Consistency with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objective 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. The proposed rezone is consistent with this FLUE objective. The subject site has received subdivision plat approval and contains a conservation easement (OR. 3989, Pages 591-596) that designates a preserve area of approximately 1.68 acres and will not impact environmentally sensitive lands nor habitat for listed species. The rezone from C-3 to C-5 is compatible with the surrounding area, as it is located within the Activity Center #18, and is located adjacent to an existing parcel that is zoned C-5. Policy 5.3: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: a. For such commercially -zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district, except as allowed by Policy 5.11, is not exceeded in the new zoning district. The foregoing notwithstanding, such commercial properties may be approved for the addition of residential uses, in accordance with the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, though an increase in overall intensity may result. A zoning change of such commercial -zoned properties to a residential zoning district is allowed as provided for in the Density Rating System of this Future Land Use Element and as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. b. For such industrially -zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity industrial, or commercial, zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity Page 2 of 3 H:A2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Narrative and FLUE Justification (rev 11-14-2022).docx Packet Pg. 630 9.A.4.d of industrial land use allowed by the existing zoning district is not exceeded in the new zoning district. C. For such residentially -zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the authorized number of dwelling units in the new zoning district does not exceed that authorized by the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of development allowed by the new zoning district does not exceed that allowed by the existing zoning district, except as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. d. For property deemed to be consistent with this Element pursuant to one or more of policies 5.9 through 5.13, said property may be combined and developed with other property, whether such other property is deemed consistent via those same policies or is deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section. For residential and mixed use developments only, the accumulated density between these properties may be distributed throughout the project, as provided for in the Density Rating System or the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, as applicable. e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and as such, provisions a.- e. above do not apply. Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. To be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). The proposed request to rezone the subject property from the C-3 zoning district to the C-5 zoning district is compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. The site is located within the Mixed Use Activity Center 418, where commercial uses are encouraged to be concentrated. The surrounding land uses, also within the Mixed Use Activity Center, include uses that are permitted within the C-3, C-4, and C-5 zoning districts. Page 3 of 3 H:A2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Narrative and FLUE Justification (rev 11-14-2022).docx Packet Pg. 631 STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE 9.A.4.d (PL-20210002658) AERIAL Packet Pg. 632 IIV ao}S - 899ZOOMOZ-1d : BE696 sooa dn-v88 OdOO euozeN 868Jo;S IIV-Jo;S - 3 44V :;u8uayoejjv W 1 NMI w z 0 N W J Q J � J LU as 0 M Cl) CD Cb a m m a I I I I I I' wdLO$l 'SZOZ 'I6 Wd 6MP'mld Isn WOW 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Packet Pg. 634 9.A.4.d CO Y County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 A®®ItESSING CHECKLIST r ` f 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) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) Fm� RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy oflengthy description maybe attached) Section 3, Township 51 S, Range 26E FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 00725960001 and 00726040001 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY (copy -needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (forexisting projects/sites only) SDP_- or AR or PL # Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 635 9.A.4.d cof e county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: E Email ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Applicant Name: Paula McMichael, AICP, V. President, Stephanie Karol, Permitting Coord/Hole Montes, Inc. Phone: 239-254-2018 Email/Fax: stephaniekarol@hmeng.com 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 00725960001 Folio Number 00726040001 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number �=k Approved by: Date: 11/02/2021 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 636 1. STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE 9.A.4.d (PL-20210002658) REZONE CRITERIA Packet Pg. 637 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL REZONE CRITERIA 10.02.08.F. Nature of requirements of Planning Commission report. When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08.E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed rezone of the subject property from the C-3 zoning district to the C-5 zoning district is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map, and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property is located within the Mixed Use Activity Center subdistrict, where the concentration of commercial uses is encouraged. No amendment to the GMP is required for this proposed rezone. 2. The existing land use pattern. The proposed rezone will not affect the existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern within the Activity Center, which is a mixture of C-3 through C-5 zoning districts, and PUDs that permit C-1 through C-5 land uses. Lands abutting directly to the southeast of this subject parcel holds an existing zoning designation of C-5. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. This rezoning 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 in the neighborhood. Existing boundaries were not illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. This site is located in close proximity to major collector/ roadways (C.R. 951 and U.S. 41) and is within the Mixed Use Activity Center #18 thus providing a suitable location for a concentration of commercial uses. The current zoning of C-3 does not permit as wide a range of commercial uses that would be anticipated within an Activity Center. The proposed amendment is not necessarily a result of changing conditions but provides for additional C-5 zoning that can permit a wider range of uses. Page 1 of 8 H:\2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Rezone Criteria (rev 11-14-2022).docx Packet Pg. 638 9.A.4.d 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Development standards will ensure compatibility with neighboring properties. The residential development to the north will be adequately screened from the proposed commercial development by an existing wall, landscape buffers, a drainage easement and a conservation easement/preserve that act as an additional buffer. Based on the existing conservation easement and drainage easement, identified on the approved SDP, there will be no development within approximately 200 feet of the north property line, where there is adjacent residential development. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The requested change will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses or otherwise affect public safety. The site is currently zoned C-3 which permits uses such as general retail, medical offices, professional offices, and fast food and restaurant establishments, which are uses that generally have a higher trip generation. The rezone will not increase the trip generation from the currently allowed uses. A majority of the rezone property is proposed to be developed into a self -storage facility, which has minimal trip generation. Further, the rezone site contains a significant portion of conservation easement area, which limits the amount of area that can be developed on the remaining parcel. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The site is designed to meet all County and SFWMD requirements. No drainage problems will be created. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The current zoning designation permits a maximum building height of 50 feet, the proposed rezone to the C-5 district permits a maximum height of 35 feet. The proposed rezone will not impact light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed change will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Page 2 of 8 HA2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Rezone Criteria (rev 11-14-2022).docx Packet Pg. 639 9.A.4.d 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed change will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed change will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The current zoning designation of C-3 permits intermediate types of commercial uses. As the subject property is located along a major intersection (C.R. 951 and US 41), and has remained vacant, this rezone presents an opportunity to develop the property in an area where the concentration of commercial uses is encouraged. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county 15. Whether it is impossible to rind other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. It is not impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use; however, the proposed development is the highest and best use of this property as it is adjacent to existing commercial (specifically existing C-5 zoning), allows the expansion of the same self -storage facility use that is adjacent to the site, and has direct access to U.S. 41 (a principal arterial roadway). 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 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 is typical of, and not different from, any other similar development in Collier County. Page 3 of 8 H:A2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Rezone Criteria (rev 11-14-2022).docx Packet Pg. 640 9.A.4.d 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 is 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, to serve the project. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Additional factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a project, or portion thereof, within an activity center are as follows: a. Rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the minimum requirements for rezoning in the LDC. The subject rezone is a standard rezone and meets the minimum requirements for rezoning within the LDC. Given the size of the subject property (less than 6 acres) and that the site is directly adjacent to an existing C-5 zoned parcel, a rezone to a PUD is not necessary. b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. Please see the attached Stor-All Rezone Zoning Map, and the table below, that demonstrates the developed and undeveloped areas, and the existing zoning within 2 miles of the Activity Center. Parcel Size Acres Zoning Land Use Building Square Footage Parcels along the S side of US 41 from Collier Blvd to the 2-mile marls to the West 77210280009/77210240007 2.46 C-5 Boat Sales/Repair 1,200 77210200005 0.80 C-5 Medical Office/Manufacturing 7,150 77210080005 2.41 C-5 Mini -Warehousing Self Storage 105,000 00446800107 0.92 C-5 Convenience/Gas Station 2,680 00447800009 4.17 C-3 Shopping Center 16,320 00447760000 1 2.46 1 C-3 Convenience/Gas Station 6,137 Page 4 of 8 HA2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Rezone Criteria (rev 11-14-2022).doex Packet Pg. 641 9.A.4.d 00447840001 1.38 C-3 Office 3,124 00447640007 3.68 C-3 Office 38,000 00447560006 (12254 Tamiami Trail) 2.61 C-3 Medical Office/General Office 20,000 a roximate 00447040005 1.73 C-3 Medical Office/General Office 13,044 68480000125 1.65 CPUD Oil Change/Automotive Part Sales 7,394 68480000028 2.12 CPUD Convenience/Gas Station 6,181 68480000222 2.67 CPUD Shopping Center 19,676 00726960000 1.15 CPUD Bank 3,814 73550000024 1.12 CPUD Bank 4,411 00726360008 .55 C-4 Restaurant 4,313 25368002026 1.08 C-4 Convenience/Gas Station 2,980 25368000028 1.28 C-4 Convenience/Pharmacy 15,834 00726723001 9.69 C-4 Shopping Center 71,938 25368002589 13.38 C-4 Home Improvement Store 126.028 Parcels on the W side of Collier Blvd from US 41 to 2-mile mark to the South 00726720800 0.88 C-4 Fast Food 3,673 00724320008 8.82 C-3 Rookery Bay Education Center 12,400 00732200000 0.44 C-4 Oil Change/Automotive Part Sales 4,925 00742520000 3.60 C-5 Mini -Warehousing Self Storage/Boat Storage 69,900 Parcels on the E side of Collier Blvd from US 41 to 2-mile mark to the South 61570000045 2.15 C-4 Shopping Center 20,687 61570000061 3.13 C-4 Shopping Center 32,680 61570000126 7.93 C-4 Shopping Center 81,328 61570000142 1.34 C-4 Shopping Center 14,784 00736200271 1.24 C-4 Convenience/Gas Station 3,511 00734680000 1.55 C-4 Convenience/Gas Station 6,137 00731840005 1.46 C-4 Oil Change/Automotive Part Sales 12,800 00736200501 2.03 C-4 Car Wash 2,500 81076000066 1.05 PUD Gas Station 6,705 81076000040 28.36 PUD Department Store (Wa1Mart) 201,783 81076000082 1.73 PUD Shopping Center 12,624 76400000100 1.0 PUD Supermarket 19,200 76400000061 0.61 CPUD Medical Office 4,029 00724800007 0.95 C-4 Convenience/Gas Station 2,680 Parcels on the S side of US 41 from Collier Blvd to 2-mile mark to the East 76400000045 1.41 CPUD Fast Food Restaurant 12,029 76400000029 20.58 CPUD Shopping Center 1122,201 Parcels on the N side of US 41 from Collier Blvd to 2-mile mark to the East 00726725009 2.07 1 C-3 I Convenience/Pharmacy 14,308 Page 5 of 8 H:\2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Rezone Criteria (rev 11-14-2022).docx Packet Pg. 642 9.A.4.d 00726727007 2.21 C-5 Mini -Warehousing Self Storage 105,000 00726726008 2.95 C-5 Tractor Supply 22,908 00726000009 3.02 C-5 Lumber Yard/Misc. Office 38,750 00726440009 2.04 C-4 Lumber Yard/Misc. Office 14,210 Parcels on the E Side of Collier Blvd from US 41 to 2-mile mark to the North 00724560004 3.62 PUD Mini -Warehousing Self Storage 68,000 Parcels on the W Side of Collier Blvd from US 41 to 2-Mile Mark to the North 69330000025 1.56 PUD Restaurant 7,577 69330000041 1.09 PUD Restaurant 5,464 69330000083 1.20 PUD Fast Food Restaurant 3,739 69330000106 1.26 PUD Fast Food Restaurant/Retail 6,433 69330000122 0.80 PUD Shopping Center 5,777 00438680209 8.8 PUD Shopping Center 65,000 Parcels along the N side of US 41 from Collier Blvd to the 2-mile mark to the West 25910000751 2.36 PUD Hotel 72,287 34520001005 22.23 PUD Shopping Center 84,947 55425004005 1.19 PUD Bank 3,523 00726640003 1.01 PUD Fast Food Restaurant 3,358 34520001403 1.15 PUD Bank 3,801 34520001306 1.28 PUD Restaurant 6,407 34520001209 0.88 PUD Bank 3,900 34520001102 1.0 PUD Fast Food Restaurant 3,543 55425001105 0.90 PUD Bank 4,264 77510401041 0.25 PUD Restaurant 6,260 77510402147 0.70 PUD Retail 5,998 77510402121 6.45 PUD Retail 55,048 c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. The rezone request proposes a general rezone from C-3 to the C-5 zoning district, and provides for one specific use to be developed, which is the self -storage warehousing use, and the remaining parcel would be eligible for other C-5 uses. The property owner of the subject property owns the parcel to the east, where there is an existing self - storage warehouse of approximately 94,000 square feet. As the property owner is seeking the development of another self -storage facility, directly adjacent to the existing facility, this is indication that the market would support such a use. The service area for this type of use is 3 miles. Within 3 miles of the subject site, there are four self -storage facilities (in addition to the existing self -storage facility adjacent to the subject site): Page 6 of 8 HA2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Rezone Criteria (rev 11-14-2022).docx Packet Pg. 643 9.A.4.d • Cube Smart: Located approximately 2.4 miles from the subject site with approximately 78,000 square feet of outdoor, garage like self -storage buildings; • Lifesmart: Located approximately 2.6 miles from the subject site with approximately 91,000 square feet of indoor self -storage; • Midgard: Located approximately 2.1 miles from the subject site with 67,500 square feet outdoor, garage like storage self -storage buildings and an outdoor storage area for up to 50 boats; and • Midgard: Located approximately .25 mile from the subject site with approximately 155,800 square feet of outdoor, garage like storage self -storage buildings. d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. The existing land use patterns within the Mixed Use Activity Center include a mix of approved C-3 — C-5 zoning, Planned Unit Developments that permit a range commercial uses, and one residentially zoned parcel that contains a Master Pump Station. Within two radial miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center the land use pattern presents commercial zoning along the major roadways (U.S. 41 and C.R. 951) with residential uses behind the commercial areas. e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. The subject property is serviced by adequate public facilities and has an existing access off U.S. 41. f. Compatibility of the proposed development within and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. The proposed development is compatible with the adjoining properties and will have adequate landscape buffers consistent with the requirements of LDC Section 4.06.00. Additionally, there is an existing wall and an existing conservation area/preserve in the rear of property, separating the proposed development with the adjacent residential area. g. Natural or man-made constraints. There are no natural or man-made constraints to the subject site that would prevent the rezoning. h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. Page 7 of 8 H:A2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Rezone Criteria (rev 11-14-2022).docx Packet Pg. 644 9.A.4.d All rezoning criteria identified in the LDC has been addressed. i. Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Code. The proposed development will adhere to all requirements of the LDC. j. Coordinated traffic flow on -site and off -site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and site plan/master plan indicating on -site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadways, location of traffic signals on the abutting roadways, and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. Coordinated traffic flow on -site and off -site has been demonstrated by the Traffic Impact Analysis. There is an existing turn lane to the subject property from U.S. 41 with shared access to the property to the east. k. Interconnections for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting projects. The subject site will provide for an interconnection to the abutting property to the east, with a connecting sidewalk from U.S. 41 to the subject site. 1. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. The development will be required to adhere to all LDC required architectural design standards, as no deviations to these standards are being requested. Page 8 of 8 HA2021\2021115\WP\2nd Resubmittal\Rezone Criteria (rev 11-14-2022).docx Packet Pg. 645 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) ZONING MAP Packet Pg. 646 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) EMAIL FROM RAY BELLOWS W/SURVEY Packet Pg. 648 9.A.4.d Stephanie Karol From: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 4:46 PM To: Ellen Summers Cc: CastroGabriela; Stephanie Karol Subject: FW: PL20210002658 - Boundary Survey Attachments: 20238 FINAL Survey 05-03-21 ES.pdf Hi Ellen, I have reviewed an and approved your request for a waiver from the 6-month old survey requirement and will accept the attached survey. Respectfully, R" Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 C; tr Cou-hty Exceeding expectations, every day! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.al/eXAvgT. From: Ellen Summers <EIIenSummers@hmeng.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 4:41 PM To: CastroGabriela <Gabriela.Castro@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Stephanie Karol <StephanieKarol@hmeng.com> Subject: PL20210002658 - Boundary Survey EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from am,external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links, Good Afternoon, We are preparing our submittal for the Stor-All Rezone and are seeking a waiver of the 6-month old survey requirement. The attached survey is about 9 months old and is digitally signed. The subject site has not changed since the survey completion and is consistent with previously approved SDPs for the site. Please let me know if this will suffice. Thankyou! Ellen Summers, AICP Senior Planner Packet Pg. 649 9.A.4.d i !� 6'i':�L394WAFf2(��CS7ICSIKMM4F(l�liBfC'�: 950 Encore Way, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34110 Main 239-254-2000 Direct 239-254-2016 Fax 239-254-2099 r\cgiS�te of CerrSe aq AICP CERTIFIED Both Ellen Summers and Hole Montes, Inc., intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Hole Montes immediately at info@hmengcom or call (239) 254-2000, and permanently dispose of the original message. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Packet Pg. 650 IIV JOTS - 899ZOOOLZOZ-ld : 8USZ) soon do-moe8 OdOO auozab 06e.104S II`d-.lo;s - 3 PV :;uaulyoe;;V � to to SnHb nWk.a•amr v�+e uw�vc� tucw.xm ,u.am a .•.w.a xu�ra�s an 39rlW ON1'MIh19'��SF 1�+PU a WxVm ce�"r�a i�rw m BBtOZ Al muu� W ®' 'ONL "mLvdswt) ONIJSO VQ „a-r„ -d row: . s axra .. �a vwa�e �W •iv: c� v - �dane"-v�'^°sw.u°N.�av °"n,mb°. n>„'M°rni. w'i°`. �,`°.°•aw�, � � _ v fn Ili � � •3 u � I�' alga m e , 7 (7 ul Ili x G i y b n I t ' Ih 1 ii e 1 / 1 % 7ni ��� /* //• ' i �^�{, 1;7 , �� ,, as ,•� , ai 11 ail,• �� s v� i,i c ,;/ ,• al I is. !�' 0 i� 1 �� % / ' �` ♦ ' �,%' l ,G �' a tl�LI ✓. e ' e �I• 7t.�n it 1�• e: I /' i y all °in �1.' / 1: Ill, • �� ;�1t Iklu Sri. ° 143 i� 11 ! ea •'•.\ IJ '; �I Rua I .9 • •mow l%i r •i 771 i r ''O1 lil / ! li / �.l 1'hlli: •yll'iii ? .� I ' / III JI ``�ii7 •' l i II '* \ lil! pl7 4 - ' �Y i' '' i 1 a i 1'1•�I�e y ' q,$l� Iliil I'y Itl g$@�ppfly �fl9 JH e, °hill ♦ �a'Ri lii� i s @%a{r> 11a�_ �a i}� {5$I Ilk g�bF�� 4�I 1 aY A i1�g� 1� 9fi��{�g�a 111F.11.1 1{MSli9, pps° i I�a,YYS¢� fli� �8gk gat $aa a le° 'Pox, t@ lit 11 2 I ! { ° ! 4 ;1 Yy i; ;; I g $l 'litifli' I �g atl ag Y,,l11lII1 1$°)II°°1111{,l{HIM I;! g g!li =g I' ° °y ��+F sq�@ i°a atsss ��s• •ossaPyt!•+1>Fx. •eo[1••.6....6 �al.°,8.��., .!� i�®�1��>;I�A�1A��apSa�Ai@1tl�� a d Y V m d 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT Packet Pg. 652 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT STOR-ALL Rezone - Inland Village (Tamiami Trail East, Collier County, Florida) February 18, 2022 Revised July 21, 2022 County TIS Review Fees TIS Methodology Review Fee = $500.00 TIS (Major Study) Review Fee = $1,500.00 Prepared by: JMBTRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 4711 7TH AVENUE SW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 19 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION No. 27830 (JMB PROJECT No. 2113820) NAMES FLORIC DocuSigned by: E519D679D23E47F... `��illllll/// 'ENS 041 F :s Na. 43g6� �*•„� J• Z a Z Z BA ss, P.E * o�—: =E p�. OR�O..��� Packet Pg. 653 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 3 Methodology 3 Scope of Project 4 Table A - Existing & Proposed Land Use - Scenario 1 4 Table B - Existing & Proposed Land Use - Scenario 2 4 Figure 1- Project Location & E+C Road Classification 4.1 Master Concept Plan 4.2 Project Generated Traffic 5 Table C - Net New Trips Generated - Scenario 1 5 Table D - Net New Trips Generated - Scenario 2 5 Table lA - Proposed Land Use Trips Computations (Scenario 1) 5.1 Table 1B - Proposed Land Use Trips Computations (Scenario 2) 5.1 Existing + Committed Road Network 6 Project Traffic Distribution 6 Area of Significant Impact 6 Figure 2 - Project Traffic Distribution 6.1 Table 2 - Area of Impact/Road Classification 6.2 2021 thru 2026 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions 7 Table 3 - 2021 & 2026 Link Volumes 7.1 Table 4 - 2026 Link Volumes/Capacity Analysis 7.2 Appendix — TIS Methodology 8 1 Packet Pg. 654 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d Conclusions Based upon the findings of this report, it was determined that the request to rezone a small-scale commercial subdivision known as Inland Village from its current zoning C-3 to C-5, which will allow for self -storage land use and other less traffic -intense land uses, will not result in an increase in site -generated trips than previously anticipated. More specifically, the amendment to allow self -storage and other less traffic -intense land uses (if approved and developed) will displace more -intense commercial uses that may otherwise be developed on Lot 2 and Lot 3. It should be noted that Lot 1 of Inland Village was previously developed as a self -storage facility. It was also determined that the proposed self-storge use on Lot 2 (if rezoned and developed as such) and the potential for the most intense land use on Lot 3 (fast food w/ drive-thru), or alternatively, Lot 2 and Lot 3 were developed with the most intense land use (fast food w/ drive-thru), then the project will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding road network. It was verified that all roadways, within the proj ect's area of impact, currently have a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the traffic associated with the planned 105,000 square feet of self -storage and the anticipated more -intense use for Lot 3 (i.e., fast food w/ drive thru). Furthermore, the report determined that all roadways, within the projecfs area of impact, currently have a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the traffic associated Lot 2 and Lot 3 being developed with the most traffic -intense land use (fast-food w/ drive thru). As determined, the road network will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for the foreseeable future and the project will not create any off -site transportation deficiencies that need to be mitigated. Because the potential development of Lots 2 and 3 will not cause any transportation deficiencies to occur, the Developer will not be required to fund any off -site roadway improvements/mitigation, other than the payment of road impact fees, which will be used to fund a portion of the costs of area -wide improvements as established by Collier County's CIE and Long -Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). More specifically, the Developer will be required to pay for the project's portion of "consumed" capacity via payment of road impact fees. As set forth by Collier County's Impact Fee Ordinance, the fees are a pro rata assessment towards the funding of area -wide transportation improvements in order to support new growth. The amount of road impact fees paid per type of land use are determined via a "consumption -based impact fee approach", in which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile of roadway network. The cost of consumed lane mile is based upon current roadway construction costs within Collier County. Therefore, the payment of road impact fees is the projects pro rata share of funding transportation improvements that are deemed necessary to support the demands generated by new growth. Site Access Conditions Inland Village has one (1) shared right-in/out access on U.S. 41, as well as access to a shared right-in/out left -in median opening on U.S. 41 that is shared with other properties that are contiguous to the southeast. U.S. 41 is under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Right and left turn lanes were previously N Packet Pg. 655 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d constructed at the two (2) points of shared access on U.S. 41 and it is expected that no further site access improvements are needed. Site access conditions will be evaluated at the time of seeking final development permits and are subject to review by the Florida Department of Transportation. Methodology On January 31, 2022, a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) Methodology Report was submitted to the office of Collier County Transportation Planning Department. The ,$500.00 methodology meeting fee will be paid at the time of submitting the zoning application. A copy of the TIS methodology has been provided in the appendix (refer to pages M1 thru M11). Packet Pg. 656 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d Scope of Project Inland Village is a partially built -out commercial subdivision that is located on the north side of U.S. 41 and approximately 1,000 feet east of Collier Boulevard, within Collier County, Florida. The property is currently zoned C-3 and Lot 1 of the subdivision was previously developed with a self -storage facility. Lot 2 and Lot 3 are currently vacant, and it is proposed to rezone the property from C-3 to C-5 with the intention to develop a self -storage facility on Lot 2. Inland Village has one (1) shared right-in/out access on U.S. 41, as well as access to a shared right-in/out left -in median opening on U.S. 41 that is shared with other properties that are contiguous to the southeast. Right and left turn lanes were previously constructed at the two (2) points of shared access on U.S. 41 and no further site access improvements are needed. If rezoned to C-5, it is expected that Lot 2 will be developed with 105,000 square feet of self -storage space and Lot 3 may be developed with the most traffic -intense land use (fast-food w/ drive-thru) or some other less intense land use. However, the rezoning of the property would not preclude Lot 2 and Lot 3 from being developed with the most intense land uses. For that reason, this study evaluates a development Scenario 1 and the more intense development Scenario 2, as defined below. Table A Existing & Proposed Land Use - Scenario 1 Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Size Self -Storage Lot 1 95,130 s.f. Self -Storage (Lot 2) 105,000 s.f. Fast -Food (Lot 3) 4,500 s.f. Table B Existing & Proposed Land Use - Scenario 2 Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Size Self -Storage Lot 1 95,130 s.f. Fast -Food (Lot 2) 4,500 s.f. Fast -Food (Lot 3) 4,500 s.f. 4 Packet Pg. 657 9.A.4.d DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-EO84655F9C90 ----- Rattlesnake Hammock ---_— __------- I 'a I `K 1 op ' I V NORTH N.T.S. G s a, � o r Price Street m 0 o T a `IF v� off' T , `ro�i F IHenderson Creek Tower Road LEGEND 6-LANE ARTERIAL 4-LANE ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR — — — — — 2-LANE ARTERIAL 2-LANE COLLECTOR/LOCAL RAIL ROAD — I TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. a, Manatee Road \\ o I \\ 0 Q' o \ 0 o o x U I I I I STOR-ALL Rezone Project Location & FIGURE 'I January 31, 2022 Roadway Classification 4.1 Packet Pg. 6 8771 cuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 Q Os Z Ln w I- w Z � w tp w �ZN O LLJ Q Lnn O: > N Z w 0 II Oz�w >Ueu wLUco VI I —a uw w cczao 2o ONINOZ9-J I w r------------ m I I to w { a w —� � JLU I I w I z y d 1zco i �I 'I I I IN I �-S �I z I O OCO U' a^ W I 2 I J Mop Z w N z e a I m O 0 N I I m >� oa I I a W two a I I I_, -- -- - -- - fi+--4------- b m ajl 1 I I w J o ui j I u al o�Z` I I I I co �F=-=;4 zww I I H 1 zi- Oaz l �� Q 4 i= I I I OJ cm 2 z� Wes¢ I I wUww WI oU¢m Zaiw I I I I I i N U v 0 i X I o\ \\ `------ m I o I o ONINOZ E-O A+ 2. N w m 0 0 ♦�//� N_ W 0 4 Q66- L g Ld O 2 z U Z Ogg N 6 CL ON o W LU O a mco0 w zJ O ¢z raw a a U H I I I( 4 II &O� O U f.:l I I II I N I _ w ✓f ; +Q � I jl I II �t I —� I I I •:�� I l �i a I III I I IR lux, _I aI !I I A w o a �O 11 N C III v { as Q S w= LU —a 0 V H a a� Ia) 4 4 a -wit ?zw ri W &P,% Mono? DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d Project Generated Traffic Traffic that can be expected to be generated by the project was estimated based upon the guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 1 lth Edition. That is, historical traffic data collected at similar land uses were relied upon in estimating the project's traffic. It was concluded that land use codes Mini - Warehouse (LUC 151— SIC code is 4225) and Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Thru (LUC934 — SIC code 5812) were most appropriate in estimating the site -generated trips for development Scenario I and Scenario 2. As estimated, the project will generate 130 vph and 106 vph during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively for development Scenario I and will generate 240 vph and 179 vph during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively for development Scenario 2. Table C and Table D provide a summary of the trip generation computation results that are shown in Table IA (Scenario 1) and Table 1B (Scenario 2), respectively. Table C Net New Trips Generated - Scenario 1 Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT (vph) (vph) New Trips 1,625 130 106 (Self -Storage & Fasst Food) Table D Net New Trips Generated - Scenario 2 Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT h h New Trips 27945 240 179 (Two (2) Fast Food Restaurants) The report concludes that the project will generate more than 100 net new trip ends during the weekday highest peak hour. As such, the report investigates the traffic impacts associated with the project based upon the criteria set forth by the Collier County Government's Traffic Impact Statement Guidelines for developments generating "more than 100 trips", which is defined as a major study. Packet Pg. 660 9.A.4.d DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 TABLE 1A TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS Stor-All Rezone Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 151 Mini -Warehouse 105,000 s.f. 934 Fast rood Restaurant w/ Drive Thru Window 4,500 s.f. Code Trip Period Trip Generation Equation Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit LUC 151 Daily Traffic (ADT) = T = 1.45(X) = 152 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = T = 0.09(X) = 9 vph 5 / 4 7-9 AM 59% Enter/ 41% Exit = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T = 0.15(X) = 16 vph 8/8 4-6 PM 47% Enter/ 53% Exit = LUC 934 Daily Traffic (ADT) = T= 467.48(X) = 2,104 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 44.61(X) = 201 vph 102 / 98 vph 51% Enter/ 49% Exit = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 33.03(X) = 149 vph 77 / 72 vph 52% Enter/ 48% Exit = Pass -by Trips per 1TE= 43% 30% Daily Pass -by Rate Per Collier County ADT = Pass -by = 30% ADT and 40% AM & PM 40% AM & PM Pass -by Rate Pass -by Daily Traffic (ADT) = 631 ADT Pass -by AM Peak Hour (vph) = 80 vph 40 / 40 vph Pass -by PM Peak Hour (vph) = 59 vph 30 / 29 vph New Daily Traffic (ADT) = 1,473 ADT New AM Peak Hour (vph) = 120 vph 62 / 58 vph New PM Peak Hour (vph) = 90 vph 47 / 43 vph TOTALS Daily Traffic (ADT) = AM Peak Hour (vph) = PM Peak Hour (vph) = 1,625 ADT 130 vph 67 / 63 vph 106 vph 55 / 51 vph 5'A Packet Pg. 661771 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d TABLE 1B TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS Stor-All Rezone Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive Thru Window 9,000 s.f. Code Trip Period Trip Generation Equation LUC 934 Daily Traffic (ADT) = T= 467.48(X) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 44.61(X) = 51% Enter/ 49% Exit = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 33.03(X) = 52% Enter/ 48% Exit = Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit 4,207 ADT 401 vph 205 / 197 vph 297 vph 154 / 143 vph Pass -by Trips per iTE= 43% 30% Daily Pass -by Rate Per Collier County ADT = Pass -by = 30% ADT and 40% AM & PM 40% AM & PM Pass -by Rate Pass -by Daily Traffic (ADT) = 1,262 ADT Pass -by AM Peak Hour (vph) = 161 vph 80 / 80 vph Pass -by PM Peak Hour (vph) = 119 vph 59 / 59 vph New Daily Traffic (ADT) = 2,945 ADT New AM Peak Hour (vph) = 240 vph 124 / 116 vph New PM Peak Hour (vph) = 179 vph 95 / 84 vph Packet Pg. 662 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d Existing + Committed Road Network Figure 1 and Table 2 provide a detail of the surrounding E + C road network. Table 2 depicts the minimum level of service performance standards and capacity for the roads within the project's area of impact. There are no planned transportation improvements within the project's area of impact. Project Traffic Distribution The project's traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network based upon logical means of ingress/egress; current and future traffic patterns in the area, location of surrounding businesses and commercial centers, as well as recreational attractions. Figure 2 and Table 2 provide a detail of the traffic distributions based on a percentage basis. Table 2 also depicts the project traffic assignment by volume for both development Scenario 1 and the most -intense development Scenario 2. Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2%, 2% and 3% criteria (i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of service capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2 describes the project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways for both development Scenario 1 and the most -intense development Scenario 2. Roads that were identified as being within the project's area of impact are shown in Table 2 for both development Scenario 1 and the most -intense development Scenario 2. 2 Packet Pg. 663 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d I I I S a / / N 209 � NORTH 1 coy �d \ N.T.S. Price Street N� LEGEND 6i— 5% ► Project Traffic Distribution by y / 3 N I `9 T I Two O) o I 0 of .T Henderson Creek Percentage Tower Road I JV1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. I STOR-ALL Rezone January 31, 2022 Project Generated I FIGURE 2 Traffic Distribution 6.1 Packet Pg. 6 47 cuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 q U20000 00000 o) r- Ezzzz zzzzz .n 0_ I'-co't �- r'(o d co m co It d"d' co I N a) (D p 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t�6 m a� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £ C N N N N N N N N N co V Y a o o) z z U) U) w w a z L +r f] L mx Y oCl) 0 00 o(+)(p(OCl) CL c 0 z d x a`Yacncnzz www�� a Q °�x p •-vim <-�rrnr �r aL°-0. > ® U y 0 0 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 OL Lm 0 to O LO N N r- M N W a 1-o NNNr N LL- d c W Q 2+ o 1 E t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 =0000 t... Q O >MMNN MMcoMN 0 a I— W 7 Yco ZOlwwo❑ ww❑❑❑ CL a N Cm mI❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑ 00, (O (0 (O (D (o (O (o d m r U w w u) T" to V) O c CL �L c > � Q, c 1 0 o O ° a a z0 CL (> u O F- (1) .4) AD Q a L a 'm Y ~ ro E ? a) E .° ro � ro o CO o - � O �q a m F- o m ✓ m m (D 2 ro rn v 0 Ix 0 U O O 7 N d' 0 (O 0 Cl) M M M H ro Li to .n M V to 0 to O m m m m c R0000 �zzzz in d mchq-0� ZO ti ti r- a E 0 0 0 0 u � m 14 CL -.0- 0 0 0 N N N N N U a 2 i5 c olz z (n (n CL z L p L -ry oaa CL c 0 z 0 (� L L_ aawwzz a rn c � m c x w w aIq co C* V� -99 L L mx'p srn qTmNr O Y Y c- 04 (LL0-a > 0000 O l O U') O (n d H o N N N r m c U O Y d � d i M 0 0 0 U) 0 0 >c0`)(N')CV N O a ZOlww❑o a 0 m O M M O O M ul (1) (D w ;t 00J)00 zz}zz 0 0 0 0 0 co MLON0) (0 r. r 0 00N0- 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N 3 3: 3: w w (- r Oi LO � t- N (O N N w w w R �, ?,� rn"qr-rnIr �-N(0CIA N 00000 0 Ln O O Lr) N N I-- co N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O r r 0 Cl) Cl) CV) (hN RNW-K.T.Ti1 T ro 'm H ro ui ro a O O N M d' to to m m m m m m LO CD CD 6 a m m a DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d 2021 thru 2026 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2021 thru 2026 project build -out traffic conditions, two forecasting methods were used. The first traffic forecasting method was the County's traffic count data was adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions, peak direction, and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour/peak direction factor and annual growth rate were derived from the 2021 Collier County AUIR Report. Using the annual growth rate, the 2026 background traffic conditions were determined, which are depicted in Table 3. The second traffic forecasting method was to add the vested trips (trip bank) identified in the 2021 AUIR report to the adjusted peak season, peak hour and peak direction traffic counts. The 2026 vested trips 'Y' background traffic volumes are depicted in Table 3. The greater of the two values produced by the two forecasting procedures was then considered to reflect the 2026 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic. Table 4 provides a summary of the 2021 thru 2026 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As shown, all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build -out for both development Scenario 1 and the most -intense development Scenario 2. VA Packet Pg. 666 IIV JOTS - 899Z000LZOZ-ld : 8USZ) soon do-moe8 OdOO 0uoz0b 06eao;S II`d-ao;S - 3 PV :;u0uayoeUV v w d CL C y 3 O C F ++ 7 a 04 = v p ti- N tU F. r O ti M C10 h. t0 O O t0 b N cc N N r1 V y> N N N r r r r ° IL IM CL L1 C M tD N N M M m t� tM M y b U) t W j O C �jo U D tp O= p N M N N t- co V C IT N Y cm N N N O � Y t N .O— .O— o (L m t9 0. Z t m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d o fl �I Co 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Q :7 ¢ (V N N tV (V tV V tf V M J D Ly a oI z z z z w w w w w Q Q co O N = N N N W to W N a ' cm ad r O E2 M = a s 13; o° - � . m q a U to d° o f0 5 m~ Ei E m o a to u) N N N c2 N Cf to O ca co co m to 0 OC H f= U cn n rn v F- m ° E c o '- U W to � 010 .- N M M M M OwwM] "■ .' cuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C� N Q NI N 'C = O 01 ❑ ❑ W m a a L = .. 0 0 � o m O= u to co 0)C N •� nT V O O O a oL L o x p o 0 0 be t (9 Cl)N a a > 04 = Q M cr M N •� d d > N N N (`q m a J a Q co�zzcn Z a z Q � ❑ a0` a = > U z da s 'nl cn U z W 2 a Y r IL a > c v 3 O C J 0== O x 0 w W N 5 y 11 0❑❑ w —� ° a m Q Z Q7aolzzz H J m c v a L L N IYO 0 Y N N N a a > 0 "m Q OI ❑ ❑ ❑ t0 c L O 04 O .r 'O O D7tM N x N M r0i N G N @ Q > N N N c '% a Y w w a LO O t� 0 Cl) U o d O a E a z Q, 0 u O E � F- t > u u � d d a` n`. s CO cc C, C C � � y � i (a M F- O 0 - O @ O Y F- > m m N E u! O N 0 ca w a 0 0 'o U 0 0 m Lo M M ❑ U m m u rn o � m rn O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M N w co N V � N rn V w w M •.' w w w 3�, ❑ U to m U w w w w w N f-- c0 co M 1l- Cfl O O CO N M V V r- ❑ U m m U O O O O O rn In LO U) 00 co 00 a F` E m w m .o O O r N vi v ui ui 0 M M M M M c �' ` O 3 O N Q x co 0 v •Y L O) ❑❑ W N -j m a Y IL 3 O O N O 2 d A 0 o rn 'Q Y L M r rn N ._ M j5 V 0 0 0 m a Y > IL 0 x` ❑ t o 0 0 aIL> co rNi N 7 � N O d a > N N N m a Y a co�zzrn a` z .+ p a` a c y 0 z Y a `- rn CO z a o� L O Y Y O N a a a > r c a j O C 0 �' o m = u N x Y OI ❑ ❑ W It a. m .% a o) z z z m L c a �2_ O a x 04 L i CV a Y @ > N N N a m c ` O x O u a o 0 0 C N 47 _M N M N-19 m p> N N N w w a CV rn co .0 t� 0 F C u ❑ _ � a E 0 z0 Q V U O F- F- 0 u Q o 'o a` a` s C�C ca i C C C� � d E m o - Q •m -0 N m N E N N L oaF� �a 0 rY 'O U 0 0 M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M co M M N rn rn r M a0 N T s �: �: 3: w w N u7 c: rnI w w w �: rn V % N N w w w w w N i- w M M r O O O O N M 'I V r ❑ U m m U �c.0 Ln LO LO O W 00 00 R � C m C � N u) C }� M o o a Y O f!O 0 2 y 0 � L N rn O O. C N N 0 -�i 00 a1 a m M a DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d APPENDIX Support Documents Packet Pg. 669 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT METHODOLOGY STOR-ALL Rezone (Tamiami Trail East, Collier County, Florida) January 31, 2022 County TIS Review Fees TIS Methodology Review Fee = $500.00 TIS (Major Study) Review Fee = $1,500.00 Prepared by: % MB TRANSPORTATION EN131NEERING, INC. 471 1 7TH AVENUE aW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 19 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 27830 WMB PROJECT No. 21 OB201 .31�ZOZ2 DATE 660 M 1 Packet Pg. 670 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d APPENDIX A IlyITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date:1-31-2022 Time: Location: Collier County Government Offices (North Horseshoe Drive) People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) James M. Banks, JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., 239-919-2767 2) Michael Sawyer, Collier County Government 3) Study Preparer• Preparer's Name and Title: James M, Banks, P.E., President Organization: JMB Transportation Engineering_ Inc. Address & Telephone Number: 4711 7th Avenue SW Naples, Florida 34119 (239)-919- 2767 Reviewer(s)• Reviewer's Name & Title: Michael Sawyer Collier County Transportation Division Applicant: Applicant's Name: Address: Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: Stor-All Rezone Location: Northeast quadrant of Collier Blvd & U.S. 41 Land Use Type: Proposed Self -Storage on Lot 2 and existingzoning oning on Lot 3 allows retail medical office restaurant & fast food w/ drive-thru ITE Code #: Promsed LUC 151 on Lot 2 and existing zoning on Lot 3 allows LUC 720 814, 932 and 934 Proposed number of development units: 105,000 s.f. Self -Storage, and on Lot 3 no more than 7,000 s.f. of retail medical office restaurant or no more than 4,500 s.f. of fast-food w/ drive thru Other: Description: Zoning: Existing: Comprehensive plan recommendation: C1Uscis'imbssviDestrioplCOLLiERl210820 Sler-Aif RemneWe?hodoloyjReport.doc M z Packet Pg. 671 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d Requested: Findings of the Preliminary Study: See the attached Study Tyne: Major TIS Study Area: Boundaries: Based upon the County's 2%, 2% & 3% impact rule. See attached Additional intersections to be analyzed: None Horizon Year(s): 2025 Analysis Time Period(s): PM Peak Future Off -Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 1 Oth Edition (Table 1) Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: Pass -by trips: None Internal trips (PUD): Transmit use: Other: Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: 2026 per Collier County's 5-,year CIE. Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: See Attached Site -trip generation: See Table 1 Trip distribution method: Based upon manual assignment (See Table 2) Traffic assignment method: Based upon manual assignment (See Table 2) Traffic growth rate: Per Collier County historical & current AUIR Reports, but not less than 2% or background or vested trips method, whichever is greater. C.IUserslMnhswlDeskleplCCLL1ER1210620 Stor-All Rezonatvlethodologpfteport.doc M 3 Packet Pg. 672 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d Special Features: (fiom preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: Traffic control: Signal system location & progression needs: On -site parking needs: Data Sources: Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: Small Scale Study —No Fee Minor Study - $750.00 Major Study - $1500.00 X Includes 2 intersections Additional Intersections - $500.00 each None All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign -off on the application. Reviewers Applicant C.lUserspmbswlDesktoplCOLL1ERt270620 Slor-NI RetoneNletb000logyReport.doc MAr Packet Pg. 673 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-EO84655F9C90 9.A.4.d I _--Rattlesnake Hammock I ` I ' C01 � � I I t T� NORTH N.T.S. ` GS m of / o Price Street o ` 0 / N Henderson Creek Tower Road rim ` Manatee Road \\ 00 ( \ \ 0 �I o \ LEGEND 01 0 6—LANE ARTERIAL 4—LANE ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR ----- 2—LANE ARTERIAL , 2—LANE COLLECTOR/LOCAL RAIL �� ROAD NIYOTRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, ING. STOR-ALL Rezone Project Location & Roadway Classification FIGURE 1 January 31, 2022 A c J Packet Pg. 6 47 cuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 LO ti I-- V) a Q Q V U d z �'' ,t: w C to to N 9 u y v v a a N R L, d xL CL u u ry C9 d E Q 4 p _iCjz �� rn m ao UZz �M o o �ZN$$#� Q' � J n. O ❑ 38� z q N as ~ Ch W5 a ~ wP0 >��o w m�0 � L m 01 + h > U) w a. t� m O ~O w w m .-t a W zC�tn Q 0J ut z UJ a a c aa_j —' cv m J W C- cr co ONINOZ 9-0 I I I; I ;' 4111 O U _ uj �V uI w----- -------- m wDLLeZ Z �I, UJI I ,I I jIj I I, 4 II maLL 0- I I I 1 I I J LU wI Z I O OmN wi�1I ..(j 0 O a^We I I J 09, }} mm W Z CZmI VJ I OOFa- N�-__- •il j `� O; ❑ ym z � m �0 I a,I a I l l� ii I I I Wa/=// o I I I ('1// p � I F- i �— ;—� 1 I I I L•7(I rn —LU ��� l �l F WIC Ln Lu i I( I b I I -A � v `n IUJI A d I X w I. r��co Fr =i 4 zww40 F aw ¢c�iY I I O �w� m (zn �0¢ i al 11 wca—iQ l Ilil w vim d Zu~iW I I W"' :i GNU f.l Lou ---- --------- — — -- , tz jrL LC Im 5 o JNINOZ E-0 l AA r ( _ I voL�S ?ZOZ lSt W"di>KYd I+A SN'lit8 9.A.4.d DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS Stor-All Rezone Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 151 Mini -Warehouse 105,000 s.f. 720 Medical -Dental Office 7,000 s.f. 814 Variety Store 7,000 s.f. 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive Thru Window 4,500 s.f. Code Trip Period Trip Generation Equation Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit LUC 151 Daily Traffic (ADT) = T = 1.45(X) = 152 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 0.09(X) = 9 vph 5 / 4 7-9 AM 59% Enter/ 41% Exit = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T = 0.15(X) = 16 vph 8 / 8 4-6 PM 47% Enter/ 53% Exit = LUC 720 Daily Traffic (ADT) = T= 42.97 (X)-108.01 = 193 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = Ln(T) = 0.90Ln(X)+1.34 = 22 vph 1715 vph 79% Enter/21% Exit = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 4.07(X) - 3.17 = 25 vph 8 / 17 vph 3016 Enter/ 70% Exit = LUC 814 Daily Traffic (ADT) = T= 63.66(X) = 446 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 3.04(X) = 21 vph 12 19 vph 57% Enter/ 43% Exit = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 6.70(X) = 47 vph 24 / 23 vph 51 % Enter/ 49% Exit = Per Collier County ADT = Poss-by =15% ADT and 25% AM & PM 15% Daily Pass -by Rate 25% AM & PM Pass -by Rate New Daily Traffic (ADT) = 379 ADT New AM Peak Hour (vph) = 16 vph 91 7 vph New PM Peak Hour (vph) = 35 vph 18 / 17 vph LUC 934 Daily Traffic (ADT) = T= 467.48(X) = 2,104 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 44.61(X) = 201 vph 102 / 98 vph 51% Enter/ 49% Exit = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T= 33.03(X) = 149 vph 77 / 72 vph 52% Enter/ 48% Exit = Pass -by Trips per ITE= 43% 30% Daily Pass -by Rate Per Collier County ADT = Pass -by = 30% ADT and 40% AM & PM 40% AM & PM Pass -by Rate Pass -by Daily Traffic (ADT) = 631 ADT Pass -by AM Peak Hour (vph) = 80 vph 40 / 40 vph Pass -by PM Peak Hour (vph) = 59 vph 30 / 29 vph New Daily Traffic (ADT) = 1,473 ADT New AM Peak Hour (vph) = 120 vph 62 / 58 vph New PM Peak Hour (vph) = 90 vph 47 / 43 vph TOTALS Daily Traffic (ADT) = 1,625 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = 130 vph 67 / 63 vph PM Peak Hour (vph) = 106 vph 55 / 51 vph M -1 Packet Pg. 676 DocuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 9.A.4.d ' N C)lT� I G � � S ; NORTH . Price Street j 30, O o o 0 I O O C Henderson Creek LEGEND -►65%Project Traffic Distribution by Percentage Tower Road I JMTRAN5PORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. I STOR-ALL Rezone Project Generated FIGURE 2 Traffic Distribution January 31, 2022 AA a Packet Pg. 677 a cuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 m w 2I0000 00000 ``r''z z z z z z z z z R r M L0 'q, � d' M V N u7 (D d£ O O O O O O r O O a VL m a o o o o � N N N N N N h1 N N v Y ° �I z z cn N W W a ° z L r 0 L oM<°LOM o a M T r a r 0 z L_ d Y-, w w z z W W W o,aa H Q 0 L L a 0 = p a oY Y���t=CO ��aiTT 2 0.LL 0 0 0 0 Q oouioui 0NI-C4 W 0. F- o N N N r N ° a W v O N 0 E a0000 00000 m v, L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q~ o p C> O M N O O O M M O ~ w OJ a Y �OIWWOM Wwoon dCIO a c R ml❑ 0 0 0 00000 'C c O CO CO "T (0 C0 c0 C0 �T c 'x W W LS7 T 0 Kf Y ~C CCN cc II N N m rn y II ,c D O .c r c $ m U� a ro as 2 ° o 0 Y o y � m > 2 . � (a o m w p m c E rn rn o a Ca A 0 H � a Y C a z° to - U A 10 ~ O N OU7 C � O .O O F n. a U ui m .fl O O .— N O O N im I 00 ti Cc 6 a m m a M M M c") @ m m m m � cuSi_ d IIV JOTS - 9S9ZOOOLZOZ-ld : 9£LSZ) sooa dn-mc)ee adaa OUOZOM OBe.ao;S II`d-ao;S -:D IIV :lUGWL]OeIIV V t m a c `� o p ~ .Q N= A co MN O)r V 'I � N Y @ > A N N N r r r a 7 a m a a� 4 cO M L m N N O T 1' 'IT N CO mLoLO � � M � Lo � M a W o c w J N Y I 'It N ^ O) m 01 c l0 � N N s- O � a Y m > a m c� Z J s w ,. gI00o o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 00000 o R Q•� Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q N N N N N N d v d M J � � a of QO Q z z z z w w w w w NN i0i° o 0 0 o rn o 0 0 0 O N OD co co N Q N N N N � N — O N ~ m `9 E m 3 c a w c 0' d � E �: m �n m F O F rn m U' � O -22 o V H° o o m aD co o rn o a (n N N co N 2 N f0 •� U in -oi r T � a r 0 0 w o ~ U W m � O O 7 N - r t M M M M m 0) 0)a "a cuSign Envelope ID: 260ABEAF-2761-404A-BF95-E084655F9C90 Q N O= m N N 'a q) D a w 0 U m m 0 m d Y a C O O O ++ N O= N m coto m CO V V M N O U O O O O O O O O m a Y > a >O Y O L OO O O O O O O O a. 0- > M M N M co M M N O 7 3 N O= Q h et N M t1 M cfl N N 9 m Y > N N N N N 9 y a > m a Y a a a o o�z z v) w w Z z a h aY d OI � �� C) m 0 w r ' a c �I U z dL a pl m cn z w w w 3 a a U O Y O e r r ems- r M aA- r U3 a a a > J G = o 0 m d' ox � a,olDow DVmmU W` —� T ° a m m Y J,°°'ao�zzz wwwww LO 04 � c 3 o c a N m B Y N N N N 0 a a m ' a O0000 COMMO L O ` o O N= OI I M S cM 'M O O O O N N N M W M a Y ' a cc C ~ m m C E N c NN m T N m H O F- N J OO 0 — O > C C m - J m C M G O > _ m N 0 � m a F- m m° m 0 F 0 U W m Q M 0 M 0) 0) 0) O M M O O w a a d Y V m a STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE 9.A.4.d (PL-20210002658) ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS Packet Pg. 681 IIV JOTS - 899ZOOOLZOZ-ld : 8USZ) soon do-moe8 OdOO auozab 06eao;S II`d-ao;S - 3 PV :IUGWL oeUV IIV JOTS - 899Z000LZOZ-ld : 8USZ) soon do-moe8 OdOO auozab 06eao;S II`d-ao;S - 3 PV :IUGWL oeUV M 00 CD 6 a m m a IIV ao}S - 899ZOOMOZ-1d : BE696 soo(3 dn-)io88 OdOO OUOZON 868Jo;S IIV-Jo;S - 3 44V :;u8WL13B V 00 CD Cb a m m a Itt 0 M N bA cd a IIV J04S - 899ZOOO6ZOZ-1d : BE696 soo(3 dn-)io88 OdOO OUOZON 868Jo;S IIV-Jo;S - 3 44V :;u8WLj3B V LO 00 CD a m m a A d- 4-, 0 d- a� bn a �w STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE 9.A.4.d (PL-20210002658) CONSERVATION EASEMENT Packet Pg. 686 THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY & RETURN TO: NAB CHRIST OPHER J. THORNTON, ESQ. 9.A.4.d 3792204 OR; 3989 PG; 0 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 02/27/2006 at 04:06PK DWIGBT 1. BROCK, CLERK RIC FIE 52.50 DOC-.10 .70 COPIES 5.00 KISC 1.50 = Retn: ADDRESS. TREMER, COLLINS & VERNON CLERK TO THE BOARD 3080 TAAHAW TRAIL EAST INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR NAPLES, FL 34112 BIT 7240 PARCEL I.D. # 00726040001 AND 00725960001 SPACE ABOVE THO,'LINE FOR PROCESSING DATA SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DATA CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT given this Z 9 day of i��W, 2005, by Southern `Qeve'Icment Co., Inc. (hereinafter "Southern Development" or "Grantor'), as Granter'; whose address is 845 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, Florida 34145, to Collier C tunN, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter "Collierodny" or "Grantee'. Grantor and Grantee may hereafter be collectively referred o'gs the "parties." WHEREAS, Grantor is then Collier County, Florida described. referred to as the "property'; and WHEREAS, Collier County is rep (" Easement's be entered into and reco to bind Grantor; and that certain tract of land located in bit "A" attached hereto (hereinafter :ghat this Conservation Easement (,the, land records of Collier County WHEREAS, the parties wish to establiSfj th`ir respective rights and responsibilities relative to the use and mainteaah of the conservation area described in the attached Composite Exhibit "B" (the Ea anent Property). NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor hereby conveys a Conn ervation Easement to Collier County as follows: t 1. Grantor, its successors, heirs, assigns and/or transfereesh; reby grants a non-exclusive easement to Collier County over and across the property described as Exhibit "B" for the purpose of conservation. Col r County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of the conservation easement. 2. No buildings, structures or impediments of any nature may be constructed, placed or permitted on, over or across the Easement Property. No dumping or placing of soil or other substances such as trash or unsightly or offensive materials shall be permitted on the Easement Property. There shall be no removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation with the exception of exotic/nuisance vegetation removal. Excavation, dredging or removal of soil 1 Packet Pg. 687 9.A.4.d OR: 3989 PG: 0592 material, peat, rock or other material substance in such a manner as to affect the surface shall be prohibited on the Easement Property. No dikes or fencing shall be permitted on the Easement Property. There shall be no other activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation or preservation permitted on the Easement Property. The Easement Property shall be in no way altered from its natural or permitted state. 3 Gnor its heirs, successors or assigns shall bear the responsibility for maintaining Easement Property, including, but not limited to, regular maintenance as ma be required by any governmental agency having jurisdiction relative thereto; e, Easement Property shall at all times be maintained in accordance with applicable requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code. `as4. No right ofcceby the general public to any part of the Easement Property is being conveied °,godlier County shall have the right to access and use of the Easement property.( for the purpose of making inspections; however, Collier County shall have no bbli Lion to maintain the Easement Property, nor shall Collier County have the nEhtte ruse the Easement Property for any purpose inconsistent with the terms of fls''Canservation Easement. 5. Grantor reserves all rights 4s o . ,, fir of the Easement Property, including the right to engage in uses of the Ese[nt Property that are not prohibited herein and which are not inconsistent vh any County ordinance, regulation or development permit, and the intent and rrurpos of this Conservation Easement. 6. Grantor shall pay any and all real propjol i, axes and assessments levied by competent authority on the property. 7. Grantor shall insert the terms and re s rictions,,of this Conservation Easement in any subsequent deed or other legal in's Ou r nt by which Grantor divests itself of any interest in the property. 8. All notices, consents, approvals or other communlcati0h 'hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given if sent . y nited States certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the appropriate party or successor in interest.- 9. This Conservation Easement may be amended, altered, released or revoked only by written agreement between the parties hereto or their heirs, successors or assigns, which shall be filed in the public records of Collier County. 10. This Conservation Easement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all present and future owners of any portion of 2 Packet Pg. 688 OR; 3989 PG; 0593 9.A.4.d the Property and their successors and/or assigns, it being the intention of the Grantor that this Conservation Easement be perpetual. 11. If any provisions of the Conservation Easement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Conservation Easement shall not be affected thereby, as long as the purpose of the Conservation Easement is preserved. 12 Enforcement of the terms, provisions and restrictions of this Conserva'ipnCasement shall be at the reasonable discretion of Grantee, and any forbearance orar s` If of Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any breach here ,yi,Grantor, shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of Grantee's rights her under. 13. The terms `and conditions of this Conservation Easement may be enforced by the Graritee by injunctive relief and other appropriate available remedies, and Grantor 6nsents,that venue of such enforcement actions shall lie exclusively in the Circuit C0 rt gf the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In any-646rcement action in which the Grantee prevails, Grantee shall be entitled to rko" reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the trial and appellate courts in add'ition`'to the cost of restoring the land to the natural vegetative and hydrologt !c' Rion existing at the time of execution of this Conservation Easement or to th development permit. These remed6 or penalty, which may be applicabl Statutes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor day and year first above written. iral vegetative state required for a i,addition to any other remedy, fine r,Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Sign, sealed and delivered in the presence of: WITNESSES: Printed Name: �'MA ✓ !!,y'c4l GRANTOR: SOUTHERN a Florida Q 3 r set its hand and seal the Curiale, a--§�ts P Packet Pg. 689 OR: 3989 PG: 059 Acceptance by Grantee: ATTEST: DWIGHTflRQ PK-j.,Qlerk :Dp�ty tl4k Is sto Chd i roan's Approved as to form and Legal sufficiency, Steven D. Griffin Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 tLe- �-Ww� FRA)4K AALACHAIRMAN w! I Packet Pg. 690 1 9.A.4.d M, 3989 PG; 0595 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Certain lands situated In the Nw 114 of seatlon 3, Townsltip 51 8out•h, Ratiqu 26 East, Collier County, state of Florida; From the HE comer of said NW 1/4. run with the Section ling Hurtle 89,33•'53" hest a distance of 324.27 feet to the West right-Qt Wsy.line of Statu Road #951: thenoo With sold right-cxf°'fw�i"y`linn South 3544010e" w.Vt a diotanee of 1252.72 feet to •i unatto,► with the North right -of -Nay line of State !weal N9o; t- ens with the right-of-way line of State Road 190 South 24.1� 51 -East a distance of 69.99 feet and South 54.10' 16" sli�E ..*`.! iatence of 379.38 feet to the true POINT OF Thence North 35.39,44i' Mast a distance of 400 feet; Whence South 54'•20' 16`""' B+st a distance of 220 toot; Thence south 35'39.."1.4" went a distance of euo teet; Thagtce North 54•20,`' 6" Y1est • diskxt�ce of 220 tent to the POINT OF 8E IliN30% [For information only: Parcel 4 f o., 007259600011 AND Brae! the East 114 Corner Of Sect•I 3,�'. stul Vith Booties line South 0 da4=ass 41 stioutss 31 s� and is t, a distanaa of 612.57 1 set; thsacit Monti► 89 dtyrega' 1W' iostex 29 secsads Most, a disloace of 722.35 feat to the�,br t*rsectioa of the Meat right -of -War line of the County'-64�-%jA4 Canal with the Month right -of -war line at static load t., (1 >eai Traill�: theacs with said !rail right-cf-war line'. 54 deQrarsa 2a nia4tes 16 soeonds Wean, a distaut:o �447•:S1 fast to the truR point of Beginning: tbance cant i"M1 '61•, ith the Trail right-of-Ysy lino North 54 degrees 20 mill t "i* }Y*CQ"5 Mast, a distance of MO feet; thsnet Month 35 ;(49""�"t )9' a<iantes 44 seconds. 'Last a distance of 400.0 f*ot: ;:Isaoi'th 54 degrees 20 minutes 16 secoads Nast, a distance of 440 ',°tb0DC& 8o-lth 3S isgcess. 39 %%autos 44 seconds Last a diiiIA&CS of 400.0 Beet to the poit►t of 9"iuniug- [For information only: Parcel ID No.00726040001 L 7 Packet Pg. 691 IIV JOTS - 899Z000LZOZ-ld : 8£4SZ) soon do -move OdOO 0uoz0M 06e.104S II`d-ao;S - C) JjV :;u0uayoejjv lu ¢ N 2 Tw W W F- m Z w m❑ O W W aW ZOpTy¢G��~1=-Z ¢U N~`D❑43 ¢�¢ 1¢O~� 4 Q O l� Z p W a W N O j OF Q O¢ WO 4 a Z o¢ Q 0 A A O 3 N ❑ v wF- v z z S¢ (W/14H UHO�W❑U¢WY�❑�mNt~/1~❑¢W¢¢❑NS 3U =¢FIpF-If/W W2JU'a I�WLIN�� Wwm,-J¢p�4' W¢zWxr=-¢~"zpNnW¢ozaWW3ra3rw-�oz f'I4 ~ry JO�KOy Wp W❑n-IuLZI mom¢` WI-SU 3❑WrZ-QW�->¢NOS '-'zw3m.Nn W'=:�2a"w- coo z'-s3`P°w N3��vwW�`ymr-�o� U w W I- y Y❑❑ o W❑ y y u 4Wow02 I-m PW❑Wq o}Ny¢❑} yZUC A ywcOWF womz ¢¢UW ¢W:�UUYN❑WI=-KW W� nUlx2-, WH❑21-Z9 V'�QQW N�Z❑¢l7 OQ ZN=Q'HW <WWW3Gf~/1 joo.O..w mcw'om~ y a ❑rx.,w muWWr¢aW3...❑acaMm =a is ¢m in, wa, w�..:¢❑Mo�¢¢a=Z�F-❑O J y❑ ❑ �ymUl lwiyr SW 4WWZ1-� SL10n WJpoWLWjy J¢p=�~ Z F- ❑UUWyn u No 3Kq`rUZ W� y~a ¢r-.W ZZ ttQ=6=W W1x-0¢WW QapW�mp a=3 0 aUj4. 4z Wu gri.=.;2w-02auLWjOo=��QV-o 2N QlW7 l�❑••�~ ¢ U¢N 3&'Qr7wzzy ¢O¢WwiWW¢pUo W UW Wti ZVH W ZN.F-Fp Ii T❑= F-,- WOF-W p J ZW❑�NywZO❑❑0pp0+4o ZO F14zH¢mOe¢��„�w����t3 (m'IpZy VI-a"W v�o ¢ r>> v W l x W'8 W J f~/1• 1fn27❑� u�~Y�x 0'44Z =¢z ¢❑V'... w¢N¢��y NW ZF WK¢��MCI:, � o.l.l�~G4 �O QW❑ RE w. uNd m❑r❑2�UJW�3 wR7 �`>p�w W¢U¢ ceW❑ x ~oa WUp�xZ�-- 4ZW 4'ZWo:v N K w0 m D 04' Z z 7fa-W�ZI,ww 4 n HNq ¢tea z��w.mv`�io M---m oyayc=:Doi UU<0:¢ uUML.0 3a¢ n L. b N h it Z ,00'BOl M .66,6f.Sf S 9Z-19-f N0003S DAMN 30 X3Na00 3N 3IP30N3hnOO 30 1N/Od *** 9690 :Jd 6868 M *** 0 0 00Y9 4k'6£9f S i6'f8 ;u 3.Y6,6GSFN �2 $V � M h ,ez'zszl 3N17 M/N IS V3 ti V) Q W cn N � ..� T , a i 1 c v� w� i nOi UI U N• O ,o o of U O W U U "h co O b O I Cl) � eq�4`N W U O O ova�o ae02 wU)z OqV N t0 19 Y U cc d 9.A.4.d STOR-ALL STORAGE REZONE (PL-20210002658) 9/13/2022 BCC MEETING MINUTES - ITEM 10.A Packet Pg. 693 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed, same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, to clarify, that is a vote on 913 and 11 G regarding the NIMs, and that will be coming back to you once the staff has worked on what their recommendations are. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: For I IH. MR. KLATZKOW: It was H until F went away, and now it's G. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I gotcha. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She requires no help. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm going to catch her on one error one of these days. Item # 10A BOARD DISCUSS IMPLEMENTING A MORATORIUM ON NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SELF -STORAGE FACILITIES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT LIST THIS USE AS A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USE ALONG US 41 BETWEEN THE PALM STREEPCOMMERCIAL DRIVE/US 41 INTERSECTION AND THE PRICE STREEPUS 41 INTERSECTION, UNTIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENTING THE EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE ADOPTED - MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK A DETAILED REPORT AT THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2022, BCC MEETING; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR — Page 104 Packet Pg. 694 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 APPROVED MS. PATTERSON: All right. Commissioners, moving along, we're into 10A. This is a recommendation to have the Board discuss implementing a moratorium on new applications for self -storage facilities in all zoning districts that list this use as a permitted or conditional use along U.S. 41 between the Palm Street/Commercial Drive/U.S. 41 intersection and the Price Street/U.S. 41 intersection until Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code amendments implementing the East Naples Community Development Plan are adopted. This item was brought forward by Commissioner LoCastro. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the floor is yours, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I don't mean to be adding a lot of things to the agenda and creating work, but, you know, I thought this one was extremely important. Years ago, you know, this commission worked really hard in District 1, you know, under Commissioner Fiala to institute an East Naples Development Plan, basically take a strong look with engineers and architects at, you know, the stretch -- I always say it goes from, sort of, Airport to Collier Boulevard down U.S. 41 to see what should it have looked like? What could it have looked like? What kind of things, you know, would make -- would bring cohesion to that area? You know, my assessment is I sure wish the East Naples Development Plan would have been -- the trigger would have been pulled on it maybe 10 years ago, and maybe this stretch would look a lot different. But in the last year, we've basically morphed that East Naples Development Plan because it's great to get artist's renderings of what it all could have and should have looked like, but it's not very helpful to us when it says, wow, 10-foot-wide sidewalks would be Page 105 Packet Pg. 695 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 great. Yeah, they would be great. We'd have to tear out a whole bunch of things right now that are already in place that are in the way. So what our staffs done is to basically utilize that East Naples Development Plan and morph it a little bit into an East Naples rezoning overlay which is examining that area. And, you know, Mr. Bosi's here to sort of fill in the blanks that I'm missing here. But just to give a quick summary, the work of that overlay is, I won't say in the final stages, but we expect early next year to get the results of that with lots of recommendations of not just what could have or should have been done but what can be done in the future; how we might better manage growth, design certain things, where certain things should go. And the reason I'm proposing a temporary moratorium on especially storage units -- and it's not that storage units are being targeted here, but it was the storage unit discussion that led to the East Naples Development Plan getting life, because they were -- seemed to be popping up sort of out of nowhere and indiscriminately in places where it was very visible green space that many thought would get something much different than a storage warehouse. You know, some might say storage facilities are great because they are -- the last few that have been built are architecturally more fancy and they don't generate a lot of traffic. They tend to just sit there, and the parking lot's almost nearly empty because people around here that downsize put stuff in storage and then leave it there for 10 years and then pick it up 10 years later and donate it to St. Matthew's House, which is a whole 'nother argument. But the reality is, it makes this stretch of 41 look very industrial, I mean, these storage warehouses. So the reason that I'm proposing a temporary moratorium -- and Page 106 Packet Pg. 696 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 I say "temporary" because I would like to wait on the results of the East Naples rezoning overlay, which is going to give us a lot of direction and not have a bunch of things sort of built and sort of sneak under the door between now and when we get that report, and then get that report and then look over our shoulder and go, wow, this report was really valuable. The last six things that we built along this stretch we would have done different or better or not have approved. And so, you know, we always talk about the cart before the horse. I want to see the horse first before we figure out what the cart should look like. And so I'm looking for your support in my district. And it's not going to affect -- there's not 50 storage units coming to us in the next six months. And I've met a lot with the staff and met with Mr. Klatzkow, so it's not something that we just drew up, you know, five minutes ago. Those storage unit facilities that are already in play, have permits, have Site Development Plans, that train already left the station. So they'll be allowed to be built. And in the cases of the ones that come to mind to me, they actually don't have much pushback. There's one towards the end of 41 and Collier, a little bit past Collier, that's an add -on to a storage unit that's already there. Site Development Plan's already in play. The citizens actually have met and, during their meetings, they actually want it. It's not in a place that's creating a lot of controversy. But this temporary moratorium would be until we get the East Naples rezoning overlay plan, get the results of it. We've spent a lot of money and a lot of time on it, so I think, you know, before we, you know, haphazardly and quickly build a bunch of things in the district that I represent, which I got a lot of pushback from citizens that see these, especially the storage units, popping up and saying, how did that one get approved? How did that one get approved? Page 107 Packet Pg. 697 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 This East Naples rezoning overlay will give us a much better education as to how we can make this part of District 1 and in East Naples look a lot better, be more functional, and add much more cohesion. And so that's why I'm asking for your support for this, you know, temporary moratorium until we get that report early next year. And I invite Mr. Bosi -- I asked him to be here in case you had any questions or, Mike, if you wanted to say something in a short summary to explain much better than I basically did, and maybe shorter, what we're doing here and what we're not doing here. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner. Mike Bosi, Zoning director. This has been an issue that this body has been dealing with for a decade. A moratorium has been suggested at one point in time. In the past, we've never gone through with it. But where we're at right now within the East Naples Development Plan and the establishment of the U.S. 41 East Corridor Overlay, we have scheduled public meetings in October and December to wrap up the public portion of it. We have GMP amendments that would be proposed for transmittal that we have tentatively scheduled before the Planning Commission in February, the Board of County Commissioners in March, and then, ultimately, we have the adoption review by the Planning Commission in May, adoption of the overlay, the GMP amendment -- GMP overlay as well to be wrapped up in June. So that's basically a nine -month period that we would expect the moratorium to be around. And what it is is it's design standards. It's other components. It's placement of buildings. It's look, it's the feel, it's transportation opportunities and avenues that are going to be -- that are going to be incorporated within the overlay to help address the concerns that we've heard from this community over the past five to seven years Packet Pg. 698 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 that we've been working on this issue trying to bring a softening to that auto -centric type of land uses that have dominated the 41 corridor. We have -- the confines are basically, as the commissioner said, from Airport Road to just a little bit west of Collier and U.S. 41. And the one thing I would say as a clarification is we do have it proposed that the moratorium would be at the DO level, but DOs do include building permits. As we spoke with Commissioner LoCastro, I think we thought it was more appropriate that it would be the SDP level where that DO would be applicable, but also talking with the County Attorney's Office. This isn't -- your decision here wouldn't be to adopt the moratorium. It would be to direct the County Attorney to bring -- to advertise and then bring back the proposed moratorium for your consideration. That's the backdrop of the -- of the issue and, you know, any questions that I could help out, I'll be more than happy to address. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm trying to remember -- I mean, we have talked about this before -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 2017. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- in'17, and we didn't -- I thought we did. Did we not? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can I refresh his memory? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and the question was -- because I thought that there was -- there was, like, a set of them that were in for permitting already, and there was some issue as to whether or not, you know, they were already in process and all that. I'm trying to remember where -- because we spent a lot of time on this, and the study was in process at the time, right? MR. BOSI: Yes. Page 109 Packet Pg. 699 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to, or do you want me to? I can give you my rendition of what transpired. Our first meeting in 2016 for Commissioner Saunders, and I think you as well, Donna Fiala brought forward the moratorium for this same corridor. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders asked her to quantify that moratorium to specific uses and not in aggregate, which she didn't do -- she did do. She delineated storage units -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- car washes and something else. MR. BOSI: Gas stations. MS. PATTERSON: Gas stations. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gas stations. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Gas stations, right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And so -- and I expressed a concern that day about there might be somebody along the 6-mile swath of the most lucratively zoned land in all of Collier County that doesn't know we're about to take away their rights. And I looked at the County Attorney and I said, is there an opt -out or an exemption process that's availed [sic] for people that are in this corridor that do, in fact, have vested rights? They said yes. Two months later, February, we came back, plus/minus, that we came back, and their opt -out discussion had to do with a conditional use provision to allow people, and on top of that they had exempted PUDs out of the moratorium. So now we have a guy with a C-5 piece of property and that use is allowed and a PUD next door that's exempted out. This guy's now put in a moratorium, and the PUD's allowed to go forward. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. It was -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And so, therefore, we stopped the moratorium discussion, instituted the corridor study for the East Page 110 Packet Pg. 700 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 Trail, and then -- and then moved on forward. So that's -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thanks for that. Now I remember the issue with the PUDs. I mean, is that -- we still have that issue, though, right? Are we going to try to address that this time around? MR. BOSI: The moratorium -- the framework of the moratorium we're talking -- we're speaking about would not exclude PUDs from the moratorium. They would be applicable to all within that geographic corridor whether it be straight zoning or whether it be PUD zoning. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So we've addressed that, that issue that we had before. Am I understanding that right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the study is how close to being finished? MR. BOSI: Tentatively, we would wrap up in June. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: June, okay. And then -- so the moratorium would be for -- until -- until what? Until we determine whether or not we want to do something Land Development Code -wise based upon the study, right? MR. BOSI: Well, the overlay is the -- is the zoning action. We've done the study. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We've done the study. MR. BOSI: We are implementing and we're designing the overlay -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- and that's the actual do, and that's what would be adopted, and I think the moratorium, as the County Attorney would suggest, can't last more than 12 months. So it's either 12 months or the adoption of the U.S. 41 Corridor Overlay Study would be the termination. And if you adopt it in -- or if you adopted the moratorium in October, it would roughly be eight months. Page 111 Packet Pg. 701 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And I guess this is an issue for later but -- when we get to the overlay but, I mean, so much of the issues seem to be structurally just those little lots saying what's between 41 and the service road behind it. I mean, I don't know how we're going to work with that kind of a structural issue, but, we'll see, I guess. MR. BOSI: And we have some design ideas and the over -- the concern of the -- or what we've heard and what we've heard over the years is it's basically one point, is goods and services, restaurants, give back on a regular basis to the surrounding community, the surrounding residential uses. Storage facilities, even though they are neighborhood serving in terms of the -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- in terms of their need and placement, they don't provide that daily interaction or the opportunity for goods and service. They're more -- they're more stale, in a sense, to the activities of the day-to-day needs of the households, and that's what -- one of the concepts that we had back in 2019 that we had proposed, if you wanted to move forward with a storage facility, 25 percent of that storage facility's first floor had to be dedicated to retail or services or restaurant, so the mixing of units within the storage facilities to provide a little bit more opportunities for them to be neighborhood serving in a way but also be able to attend to their storage purpose primary use. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. Okay. I'm just --I'll just throw it out there that I think one of the things that's going to be of interest to me if -- you know, if it shows up before I'm no longer here is, as I recall, one of the problems was what can you actually do commercially on one of these small commercial lots, and I remember that issue but, commercially, there were some issues. Anyway. Okay. I get it now. Page 112 Packet Pg. 702 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 Thanks for the -- thank you for the refresher, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No problem. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What we tried to do with this is make improvements to it so that what failed last time or what are concerns -- and that's why I wanted to -- you know, I wasn't here in 2016. So that, you know, if there was something that concerned you that caused it to fail last time, now we're way further down the road. And, trust me, that stretch of U.S. 41, in my opinion, doesn't look exponentially better. When it failed, then a lot of things popped in there along that stretch that maybe could have been more cohesive or could have had more direction. But some of the things that we've done with this temporary moratorium is developers can still apply for permits and go through the process and -- you know, it doesn't stall that, but then they would have to wait until we get the East Naples, you know, rezoning overlay direction before they could actually put a shovel in the ground. And if that overlay gave us very specific direction that changed their design or their location or what have you, then great. Then the benefit of this, you know, multiyear study has -- it bore fruit, and that's, you know, what we're trying to do. The overlay might also direct that storage units aren't horrible, but they maybe should be in very different locations. And so I'm not trying to guess what the study is going to do, but I think we're going to get so much direction and education out of this study that I would like to make sure, then, that we can utilize it for future development and not, like I said, have a bunch of things sort of sneak under the door. The issue that Mike said, one of the recommendations could be more of a mixed -use type or whatever. Maybe it's that. I don't disagree with Commissioner Solis that I'd like to see what that looks Page 113 Packet Pg. 703 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 like. I don't think I want to eat at a five-star restaurant that has a storage unit attached to it. But the whole, you know, catalyst here is that this is something that's been in discussion for many years. It failed last time. I'm really looking for your support to approve it this time. I have not gotten pushback from really anyone. I mean, a few storage units that are in play right now and that are already past the point of no return were concerned, and that's why -- one of the reasons why I was doing that NBC interview was to separate rumor from fact. We're not putting a halt on things that are halfway built or about to happen. But between now and June or maybe even sooner, not making some mistakes or things that could have been built better based on the guidance of this overlay, that's what, I think, we want to take advantage of. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So when we have a zoning in progress, that does not preclude the approval of different projects like zoning in progress. It's very clear that storage facilities are a no -no for the East Naples Civic Association. That doesn't preclude them from coming in and getting an approval for it on an administrative level? MR. KLATZKOW: What it does is that anybody who's already in the process will continue to go through the process, but staff will not take any more applications for this particular use until the issue of the moratorium is resolved. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But if we didn't have a moratorium, if it was just -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you did not have a moratorium, it's business as usual, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Business as usual. Okay. That's what I needed to know. Page 114 Packet Pg. 704 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 The storage units are perfect for that length of the time -- that length of road because they don't require the parking that businesses that would be a much better fit for the neighborhood would, and that's one of the big challenges is the lack of parking. But I would support this moratorium. Can I make a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I mean, I'd like to make the motion that you support this moratorium, and I'd appreciate your second. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I am going to second it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that the moratorium go forward. For purposes of discussion, I am now going to speak. I'm not in support of this. These are not green spaces that all of a sudden something pops up on. These are real property rights that we're taking away from people that own land in the most lucratively zoned corridor in Collier County on U.S. 41. These lands were zoned for this use. My intent when I suggested to Commissioner Fiala that we initiate the corridor study was to educate the people who live in this particular area that drive by that bunch of trees, that it's not ever [sic] going to be trees. There's going to be something else there. Now, design standards, side -yard setbacks, landscaping, those are all things that I can sit still for. But taking real property rights away, even on a delay of this theoretical temporary moratorium, innocent theoretical. It can only be held for 12 months unless it's extended by this board again for another 12 months. And if the corridor study that I proposed we do in 2017 five years later is not done, we ought to be bringing back the people that were in charge of that, and they need to go, let alone taking away the rights of the people on the East Trail of 41. There's nothing being snuck underneath the door, sir, in all Page 115 Packet Pg. 705 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 sincerity. You've said that twice, and I made a note of it. These are zoned properties. These are allowed uses. Nothing's being snuck underneath the door. There is a -- I can't say the Latin term. What's it's called, caveat emptor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Caveat emptor. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's the buyer beware. If you buy a house down one of these streets and you're driving past a vacant -- we had a similar circumstance on Beck and 951 at Forest Glen off the sixth hole when that nine acres that got included in the innovation zone; it's coming forward now. And we had a similar circumstance there. Those folks all wanted that to stay trees, and then we shared with them that it wasn't going to stay trees, and it's now going to be something else. And the developer's come forward and worked with the community, and I think they've came to an amicable agreement. There is a horse. The horse is the GMP, the Growth Management Plan. The horse is the Land Development Code which establishes those zoning -- the zoning rights that are currently existent by the people that are out there. The study should, would, could have educated the populous and the folks that live in this area as to what's, in fact, there, draw in opinions on design standards and colors and side -yard setbacks and so ons and so forth, but it didn't do that. And now I think taking away these rights for these property owners is a terrible idea, just terrible. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There's a taking that's transpiring here. So I can't support it, won't support it. How many votes does it have to have? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Three. Here -- but I've hit my light. Let me respond to that. First off, we have -- it's not 2016 anymore, okay. So we have to be smart Page 116 Packet Pg. 706 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 enough on this panel here to be able to look at something, and as things change and modernize and develop, to be able to ebb and flow. Unless you have a short memory, there was a piece of property over at Lely that's been zoned commercial for -- since the beginning of time. We all just voted unanimously to rezone it because it made more sense. There wasn't a Skillet's shopping center across the street from it. There wasn't a Starbucks and a Publix and a Hobby Lobby and an Outback, but now there is. And so we were astute enough to say, you know, that was zoned for a reason for commercial, but our job's also to be smart enough to take a look at something. So in 2016, maybe you drove down U.S. 41 and you saw one or two storage units, and maybe it wasn't a big deal. A lot has changed since then. So I don't -- I understand zoning, and I disagree we're taking away anything. I think what we're trying to do is figure out how to control the bleeding. Can't undo history. But I think this East Naples rezoning overlay is going to give us a lot of information, and I'd hate -- I would hate to be looking over my shoulder at things that did sneak under the door between now and June and say, wow, imagine if we would have passed a moratorium. Those five things that got built would have been -- would have looked nicer, would have been different, might have been mixed use, might have been disapproved, might have been put somewhere else, might have been approved as -is. So I don't think the number -one goal of the moratorium is to take anything away. It's to improve the aesthetics of my district and all of the citizens who have voiced so many concerns. And even previously years ago when this came up -- and that's why we tried to come up with a moratorium that was maybe less restrictive and a little bit more temporary. And like -- and like I say, a lot has changed since 2016. So I Page 117 Packet Pg. 707 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 think, you know, we change things all the time. We take a look at how we can better our community and, you know, reclassify zonage and approvals and ordinances, and that's what we do up here. And so I think we've got to look at current history and take a look at that stretch. And, you know, being the commissioner of that district, I think that's one of the least nicest looking stretches in District 1. And, you know, I take exception to say -- to tell my constituents, you know, you get what you pay for. So if you move into that stretch of District 1, you know, and you're surrounded by warehouses, you know, too damn bad; that's what the ordinance says and that's what the rules say. So, you know, do your homework and move somewhere else. I think we can do better. And so I'm asking for your support for a temporary moratorium so we can take advantage of this multi -hundred -thousand -dollar study that's been in play forever that has benefited us with nothing and utilize it when it comes to us early next year and see if it does direct some changes, some improvements in how we shape, you know, that part of District 1. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just as a proviso -- and my memory's not that bad. I just reread 9A, and we still allow for C-3 zoning or residential use. We didn't rezone anything. We just added a use that this developer has a right to do. Don't fluff it off, because you're using that as comparison. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Have we ever rezoned anything here from commercial to residential just black and white? Have you ever done that? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So that's my point, and so we made some changes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That wasn't what we did this morning. Page 118 Packet Pg. 708 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. But we made some changes to a piece of property this morning or we -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We allowed for an additional use to be considered on a piece of property that we all thought it was better. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. But you were almost falling on your sword saying we have ordinances, things are zoned a certain way, it should stay that way to the end of time, and if people don't like it, then don't move there. You know, tough bananas. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That isn't at all what I said. I wasn't falling on a sword. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's what it sounded like. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: What I do is I carry and hold real property rights sacred and you, nor anything else, is going to take them away from the people that have that underlying right without paying due compensation, period. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm doing none of those things. And if you were in this district, you might be better educated as to what's going on in District 1. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I might be. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS : Boy, it's really painful for me to say I think I agree with Commissioner McDaniel, but I agree with Commissioner McDaniel. I don't think it's appropriate for us to be involved in trying -- in trying to change market forces. The free market works pretty well. And if a property owner has a right right now to do this type of a storage facility and the market demand is there, then that's the right location as far as the property owner's concerned. I don't think it's up to us to simply say, well, we're going to change that. So I'm going -- I'm going to vote against the motion. Page 119 Packet Pg. 709 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, if I have a chance to at least rebut a little bit. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You do. I'm calling on you now. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. We're not saying we're changing that. What we're basically saying is we're taking a pause and trying to take a multi -hundred -thousand -dollar taxpayer -funded study that has dragged its feet for years and be able -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Five. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- five, which to me is excessive. I think people should be fired already over that. But we've accelerated it, and we've put the accelerator down, and we want to be able to then utilize the benefit of that study for a much more cohesive and better plan down that U.S. 41 corridor. So if somebody's got a burning itch to build a storage unit and they can't wait eight or nine months to do it, then, you know, that surprises me. And I would just say, if this was your district, I think you might feel differently driving down that stretch of road and from the citizens you would hear from. So there was a reason why I think this was offered. I think we've made it a little softer, a lot more temporary. And I understand what you're saying. I guess I just agree with it -- or disagree with it aggressively. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And vice versa. Again, my opinion is my opinion, and I'm certainly entitled to that. And I understand why you're bringing this forward. I have had the same phone call -- not all of the same phone calls, but the same information provided to me over the years as well. And I just -- I don't concur with the thought. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just kind of an analogy here. In my district, in Golden Gate City, there's a zoning district along Page 120 Packet Pg. 710 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 Golden Gate Parkway. Both sides of Golden Gate Parkway are commercial. I got staff, and we worked on a land use -- a change to the zoning there, but we did it as an overlay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We didn't change anything that the current property owners had in terms of what they could do with their property, but we developed an overlay so that they could go to a different type of zoning if they chose to. And I think that that's probably -- I'm not sure that that approach would work in East Naples, but I'm just letting you know that my view is we tried to give property owners the other opportunities, the choices to make, and that's what we did in Golden Gate City. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that was one of the reasons why I supported the overlay that we put through in Golden Gate City, because it allowed for the underlying uses that were existent to remain. I expressed a concern about the overlay because some of those use changes that are by right now on those commercial properties, I remember talking -- Anita Jenkins was the planner that worked on that. And I talked to her, and I was like, do the people that live behind the K-Mart on the Golden Gate Parkway know that there could be a 6-story building looking down at them and their pool behind? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, there can't be. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, there can't be. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, six stories, you're correct. There's height restrictions there, but there was a concern -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll go back to the old statement that "words matter." When you tell somebody that you can do a 6-story building behind the K-Mart there, I'm going to start getting phone calls from people who don't want a 6-story building. Page 121 Packet Pg. 711 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. Sorry about that. I retract that statement. Forgive me. I had concerns about the by -right aspect of the overlay, but it was, I felt, a far better path for us to manage the inevitable use changes that could, in fact, occur, and it was done in a public format, so -- not by a moratorium. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm 100 percent for property rights and for people who own land to be able to do with it what they want but also, too, we have to monitor what's happening in that community. And between 2016 and now, a lot of things have changed on this stretch that I think could have been better managed. That's what we're just trying to get our arms around. So this isn't about taking away somebody's rights, but it's about us, you know, taking a breath and a pause and being able, then, to get the results of a study that might give us different direction and different input and not, you know, allowing something to be built maybe less appropriately than what this important study is going to tell us. And so I -- and that's why it's a temporary moratorium. And, you know, I just think that, you know, you've got to be able to have both eyes open and see what's happening in your community, and if you see something's happening in a negative way, you've got to speak up and not just say, well, you know, tough noogies, that's just how it goes. If you don't want to live next to a storage unit, then you know that when you buy your house. The constituents I represent, I would never tell them that. And I just think we can make improvements to how we approve, whether it's storage units or other construction, you know, permit applications, and especially in this stretch so that it looks as nice and as cohesive as a lot of other parts of Collier County. And at some point, I think we've got to raise our hand and take Page 122 Packet Pg. 712 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 responsibility for trying to make our community look as good as it can and not just fall back on, well, that's what the ordinance says. That's what allows. We should be able to have the leverage and the foresight to be able to make improvements as we see things develop. And if anybody thinks the stretch of U.S. 41 looks better today -- yeah, it does in pieces. But overall I would say it's less cohesive today than it was in 2016. If we're okay with that and we just say, let the construction fall where it may, well, that's why we want the East Naples rezoning overlay results so we could be better educated on how we can utilize what's left of the green space. And maybe the reason why, Commissioner, you know, Taylor supports it is because maybe we're closer to it. You know, our districts overlap, and, you know, we see the results of driving back and forth on that stretch. And I just think we can do better, and I think this is a start, to at least take a pause. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm honoring the requests of the people, including former Commissioner Fiala, who listened to the neighbors just pleading, look, how are we going to -- how are we going to get what we want here? So it's a dream. It's a long time coming. It's no one's fault, staff s fault. We did have a two-year interruption almost with this process. And now the real estate market's booming. And we know we have something right here in front of us about appealing a Hearing Examiner's permission. So I'd just like to see -- but there's no other way to do it besides have a moratorium. There's no other way. I mean, there's no other way. MR. KLATZKOW: If what you want to do is stop new applications for storage units, then your tool is a moratorium. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But I do want to say, it wasn't Page 123 Packet Pg. 713 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 a matter of stopping. It's a matter of just taking a pause. So we're not trying to do something permanent here. We're trying to get the benefits of a five-year study to come to us first before we allow continued construction to happen. And I think even just this discussion, if this moratorium fails and I was somebody that was brainstorming a storage unit, I would rush those permit applications as quickly as possible to the county before somebody has a better idea to try to do this again or in some other form. And that's where I wanted to just have much more responsibility, you know, and oversight and control, and, most importantly, the benefit of this five-year plan to come to us and see what it tells us we could to do make that stretch look better. So it's not a matter of, you know, permanently stopping. And I know that's what you weren't saying [sic], but I'd like to use better terminology that just says, taking a pause until we have the benefit of this study. And I'm flabbergasted that that's not something that -- that seems to be accessible or even embraced by this commission as a whole. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So we have the swing vote, so why don't we vote. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You and I are -- I was just going to say, we're done COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have a swing vote there. He's sitting at the end, and he's not giving me any face or indication of how he's going to vote, so I think we should vote. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So it's been moved and seconded that the moratorium go forward. And I think if we're discussing this, we're going to bring it back for a review and reread before it's implemented? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. However your packet has the proposed ordinance, I would -- Page 124 Packet Pg. 714 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Asa draft. MR. KLATZKOW: I will be bringing forward that proposed ordinance at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. And that was sort of the other thing, too, here is to get your support to be able to bring back a draft that could be looked at, and that's why I wanted to see if there was nuances of a moratorium that maybe failed years ago under previous leadership that could be added or changed now and especially, too, with how things have progressed. Now you see how the county -- or how that piece of the county has changed -- to get your support to bring a moratorium forward. You can kill it then if you want, but I just think prematurely killing it now, it would be shocking, you know, to me. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I'll support the motion to bring it back, but -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There we go. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- it's unlikely I'll vote to support the ordinance. But I'll go that far as to take a look at it. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Would there be verbiage that you could educate us on now that you would like to see in there or that you heard years ago that was -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll just wait to see what comes back. I could make some comments on an ordinance that's in front of me. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I'll support the motion to direct staff to draft some ordinance and come back, but I don't want that to be an indication that I'm going to -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- vote for it. Page 125 Packet Pg. 715 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- no. That's all we're looking for. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I was going to say the same thing, that if this is to bring back an ordinance to consider, I would support it, although, you know, I think there are -- I have to agree with Commissioner McDaniel. I think we had this discussion a few years ago. And I think the biggest thing we can do is bring forward the overlay sooner rather than later. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, that's -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- that's the key. I don't know that I can support a moratorium, but it's worth discussing. If there's something that makes it -- you know, because, ultimately, what we're saying is we are going to -- we are going to do away with one use. I mean, we might as well just say that now. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we bifurcate that? Can we bifurcate the overlay and say let's just -- let's bring forward the overlay regarding -- specifically regarding the storage units and have it up here for a vote? Can we do that? MR. KLATZKOW: There's going to come a time where Mr. Bosi brings forward the proposed amendments, and at that point in time you can do pretty much whatever you want to do. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But what if we fast forward the question about these storage units? MR. BOSI: We have two additional public meetings that we're to go talk to the community about for them to review the design improvements that are being suggested as part of the already accepted East Naples Development Plan. And, remember, we talk about --this isn't one plan. It was a plan in 2017 and ' 18, and we Page 126 Packet Pg. 716 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 ended up in 2019 they didn't adopt a moratorium. And then you -- and then the county hired Tindale Oliver to do the East Naples Community Development Plan. That plan was accepted. That plan suggested a zoning overlay. We are in the processes of implementing that zoning overlay. So this is the third part of a six- and seven-year study that is not one study; it's two separate studies and one overlay. We can -- I mean, what you're suggesting is to abbreviate and just bring back restrictions related to -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Accelerate. Not abbreviate. Not abbreviate -- MR. BOSI: Well, the public process that we've advertised was that in October and December were going to be public meetings, and what you're trying -- we would, what, condense that? Is that what you want to -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I am asking to bifurcate the issue of the storage units from the rest of the overlay. Proceeding on the schedule as publicized for the overlay, but accelerating the question about the storage units, understanding that next year sometime they can all be put together. But, meanwhile, we have a discussion with the overlay as the -- as the parent of this child of the storage units. We can have that discussion and make that decision now. Not now, but -- MR. BOSI: I guess we can. I'm not sure what -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't know what that means. MR. BOSI: I'm not confident in the cohesiveness of what we could bring back. But we will gather and try to adjust in a way and simply only focus upon storage facilities. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: At the beginning. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, the moratorium is proposed for storage facilities only. Page 127 Packet Pg. 717 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But then we would not have to have a moratorium. We could bring back the overlay addressing specifically the storage units and more to come at a later point. Could we do that? Can we bifurcate or can we separate -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Divide it up. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- the storage units from the rest of the overlay and address that initially? MR. KLATZKOW: You can direct staff to come back just on the issue of the storage units. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But I think that -- MR. KLATZKOW: But that doesn't stop anybody from putting up more storage units until that happens. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But the study overall isn't broken out. I'm sure it has many chapters and it's broken out into pieces, but it's one cohesive thing. Saying, you know, let's surgically remove the storage piece, I think, makes the overall study less effective. And I don't think waiting till June to get a complete study that might have other parts and pieces -- this isn't just about putting a spotlight on storage units. Storage units were the catalyst that maybe pushed this thing forward. But, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, Jamie, I think what -- because I see Mr. French there. I think this thing sits on its own. It's one big book that's going to come to us. But if there's a way to surgically remove the storage unit piece -- but I think we'd have a much more cohesive product if we got the whole thing in its entirety. I mean, that's like saying, let's do a study on how hurricanes, you know, affect, you know, Collier County but, you know, we just want the piece about beaches. Well, some of the pieces that talk about things other than beaches might sort of intersect with how we, you know, address beaches. You know, just getting back to this, is it in chunks? And then Page 128 Packet Pg. 718 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 regardless of your answer, there's still some public comment pieces that we want to make sure happen, you know, without interrupting those. MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, I'm Jamie French, your department head for Growth Management/Community Development. Commissioners, why don't we -- if I could make a suggestion, why don't we get a preview to you for this. We could bring it back the next two weeks. We can indicate what our current processes are just as a reminder as well as where we are in the process with regards to our consultant. As Mike said, this dates back a few years. It started -- of course -- I know, Anita under Mr. Cohen. There's been a lot of staff time and consultant hours in this one. So we'll bring that up. Now, we've also got some questions with regards to design standards and mobility. We'd like to see where the consultant is with that. And we do apologize for not having that off of -- just off the hip. But this is a work in progress that does require -- or we think it requires a little bit more community interaction, because we do know how important this is to the community. So if it's okay with you, we'll bring you back a report in two weeks, and then at that point, perhaps you could give us some further guidance, if that will work. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's what the motion is, that in two weeks you would bring back something with a lot more detail in it. MR. FRENCH: We will bring back where we are in this process with the consultant, and if we can -- and if we can break out where they are with just the storage facilities, we will certainly report on that as well. But we'll bring you back all available data that we have just in a report fashion, and if you choose to table this or want to Page 129 Packet Pg. 719 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 have further discussion on it at that point, of course we'll work with Mr. Klatzkow's office going forward. But, clearly, we want to demonstrate to you we didn't think that it was ready for, lack of a better term, prime time, but we'll bring you back where we are as far as in progress in two weeks, if that will work. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I guess I'd amend my motion to say I'd like you to bring it back in two weeks and look for the commissioners to consider, you know, based on those results, a moratorium or not a moratorium or an accelerated East Naples, you know, rezone overlay or something in the middle. MR. FRENCH: And staff may be in a better position to actually make a request of the Board at that point. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'm happy to amend my second to -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So basically you're -- you're basically going to continue this item for the next two weeks before we make a decision? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, you could say that, or the motion is to approve the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. It's either continued till next two weeks, or you're going to make a motion to bring back a moratorium. Because I'm not supporting a moratorium. I'll support bringing it back in two weeks and having further discussion -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Great. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- but I'm not going to support a moratorium. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Well, if they come back in two weeks and part of the -- well, I don't have a crystal ball, so I look for your support, and if your support is that you agreed to have them come back here in two weeks -- they might come back Page 130 Packet Pg. 720 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 here in two weeks and their recommendation is a moratorium, and at such time you will vote no, but maybe the other commissioners will be a little bit more open to facts. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Basically, you've amended your motion to continue this item for two weeks. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Seconder agrees. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're okay with that. Are you okay with that? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And that's the same result, so I'm happy. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I'm trying to think of what the future holds here. You're asking this item to be continued, so in two weeks we're going to be talking about whether or not we're going to advertise an ordinance. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm going to advertise the ordinance unless told otherwise, and you'll have it, and you can make your decision. Understanding that people can -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't know why you would advertise an ordinance right now, because I'm up here hearing three of us say we're not in support of a moratorium until we review it. MR. KLATZKOW: I've heard different, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I have no problem in the County Attorney drafting the ordinance and advertising it and bringing it back. I'm just saying that I may not support it when it comes back. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. And he's not advertising that there is an ordinance. It's just a proposal, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. That's why I need direction from you. I can advertise an ordinance, and I have to do it today for your next meeting or not. It's the pleasure of the Board. Page 131 Packet Pg. 721 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Commissioner Solis, you're lit up really being very patient down there. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I didn't really get a chance to finish. I mean, I think -- I think what I'm hearing is what would be helpful is to have at least some preview of what the recommendations are going to be because, as I see it, if one of the recommendations is we should just not allow storage units anymore, okay, then that's one thing, and it -- and a moratorium, you know, puts that in a different light. But if that's not the case -- and I think one of the problems, as I recall -- this is coming back to me -- is the whole -- structurally out there there's very few things that can actually commercially work on some of those lots other than a storage unit, because there's no room for parking. They're so narrow. Access is an issue. I think it's just -- it's way more complicated. But I'm not against having staff come back with some kind of preliminary, albeit, soft summary of where it stands so that we can get a feel for it, and then we can talk about, you know, whether the moratorium makes any sense. But right now, I mean, yeah -- I'm not against having more discussion, but I need more information before I would consider it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, please be assured that Tindale and Oliver and the planning process from our county are acutely aware of the limitations of what can be built along U.S. 41. Unfortunately, the residents aren't or they don't accept it. So there's a problem that we have in communication. So I think to have that discussion at our next meeting would be very helpful for everyone and for the residents to hear from us and our reactions. Because it's clear. I've sat through these meetings and it's, you know, we want, we want, we want, but what is reality, Page 132 Packet Pg. 722 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 reality, reality? And I think -- I think now the rubber hits the road. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I totally agree, and I -- and I understand Commissioner LoCastro's issue. I mean, it is -- it is a problem, but we have to understand what we can do because, otherwise, I mean, I think we can box ourselves into a taking, and then we end up -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Getting sued. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- you know, end up having to buy a bunch of these lots for -- and we shouldn't do that. So I don't think we should box ourselves in like that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think when you bring it back, it would be very helpful to say, okay, this is your typical lot. These are the dimensions. What can be -- what can be built here based on our current zoning? And you've got that information. I know you do. MR. FRENCH: Commissioner, what we'll do is we'll look at all the -- all the past studies but also all the lots. We would only focus on those vacant lots. Most of them are going to be in a C-3 zoning which would require rezone anyway. They would not be available for the conditional -use process currently through the Hearing Examiner. But we'll bring back all of those vacant lots that exist. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. FRENCH: Along the U.S. 41, in that same area, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you have a say? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: To quote my esteemed colleague, Commissioner Solis, it is a problem. So that's why we have the East Naples Development Plan, and that's why we've turned it into the East Naples rezoning overlay so that we can get the benefits of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of research to tell Page 133 Packet Pg. 723 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 us where we can do better. If we have a problem, our job is to find solutions, and we've got to stop kicking the can in District 1 in East Naples. It doesn't look better today than it did in 2016. So I agree there is a problem. And if someone's got a better solution, great. But it sounds like this proposal's come up several times and failed for maybe, you know, small, big, or medium reasons. But, you know, I'm here to tell you, I'm raising my hand because I'm trying to find a solution in my district to manage growth better, and I can't wait for the results of this plan. I'd like to see it in its entirety. I'm not against waiting two weeks and feeling -- and finding out how we chip out a piece and sort of artificially accelerate just the part about storage units. But, you know, we'll see in 14 days what that nets. But I think we're not getting the full benefit of the entire study if we do that. But, you know, we'll see what it says. But there is a problem. It's our job to find a solution, and I'm representing the constituents who are tired of looking at that problem and hearing the can kick for what they perceive as formalities. I disagree. If somebody told me there's pieces of land and the only thing that can go on that piece of land is a storage unit, it's that or nothing, wow. I mean, that's an engineer or developer or designer that I wouldn't hire. There's always multiple things that can go there. If you need parking, there's creative ways to do parking. So somebody better not tell me in this room that a big chunk of green space I have left in District 1 can only be storage units, I mean, I think that's very naive. I want to -- and so that's why I'm looking forward to this study, and I don't want to artificially see a bunch of things force fed in my community in that once we get this study, the study may not have supported those five, six, seven, two things that were built between now and when the study comes, and we go, wow, Page 134 Packet Pg. 724 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 if we had to do it all over again, boy, this study sure gave us a lot of great information. It would have been nice to have that back in November, December, January, February, March, April, May when a few things were sort of, you know, squeezed in to District 1, and they actually don't meet the requirements of what the overlay states. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. And just to reiterate, the study's done. The East Naples Community Development Study has been accepted. What we are designing is the implementation, the design standards, the mobility standards, the residential standards that will create the overlay. So what I can do is send out the adopted East Naples Development Plan as a precursor to the executive summary we're going to put together that will be the high-level overlay key pieces that the Board could review, and then I make a better evaluation as to how you guys would like to move forward. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It sounds great. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So are we continuing it, or are we voting on a moratorium? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: We'll continue it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Continue it for two weeks? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded we continue this item for two weeks. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want me to advertise an ordinance or not? CHAIRMAN MCDANIEL: No. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded we continue the item for two weeks. Any other discussion? (No response.) Page 135 Packet Pg. 725 9.A.4.d September 13, 2022 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed, same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. All right. Item # 1013 RESOLUTION 2022-141; A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORMATION OF A "FRIENDS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY VETERAN'S NURSING HOME" FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOLICITING AND RECEIVING FUNDING FOR DEVELOPING ANCILLARY SERVICES GENERALLY NOT PROVIDED WITHIN A STATE OPERATED FACILITY AT THE FUTURE COLLIER COUNTY VETERAN'S NURSING HOME - MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS TO APPROVE; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO — ADOPTED MS. PATTERSON: Item 1013 is an add -on item. It's a recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the formation of a friends of the Collier County veterans nursing home for the purpose of soliciting and receiving funding for developing ancillary services generally not provided within a state -operated facility at the future Collier County veterans nursing home. This is being brought forward at Commissioner Saunders' request. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. Page 136 Packet Pg. 726 9.A.4.e Neighborhood Meeting Summary Stor-All Rezone (PL-20210002658) July 6, 2022, 5:30 PM Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve - The Auditorium 300 Tower Road, Naples FL, 34113 The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows: RZ-PL-20210002658 - A petition to rezone the subject property from the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to the Heavy Commercial District (C-5) has been submitted to Collier County for approval. The request is for 5.5-± acres. The site this is located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Blvd, and within Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The request includes a number of limiting conditions, as well as conditions to ensure compatibility with Falling Waters residential community to the north, including limiting C-5 use to indoor air conditioned self -storage; limiting building height to 35 feet; significant setbacks from adjacent Falling Waters residential community; locational restrictions on parking and loading; limits on hours of operation; and limits on lighting in the rear of the building. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. Property Owner: Stor-All Tamiami Trail, LLC Applicant: Stor-All Tamiami Trail, LLC Attendees on Behalf of the Applicant: Bob Mulhere, FAICP, Hole Montes, Inc. Ellen Summers, AICP, Hole Montes, Inc. Felix Pardo, AIA, ASID, CSI, Felix Pardo & Associates, Inc. James Banks, P.E., JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. There were 9 members of public physically in attendance, and 2 members of the public in attendance via Zoom. Bob Mulhere made a brief presentation detailing the significant aspects of the proposal. Following the presentation, the meeting was opened up for comments and questions from members of the public in attendance in person and on Zoom. The following comments and questions were raised (responses in bold): • Does the proposal change the existing median cut or access to accommodate this use? Response: No, there will be no additional changes to access. There is an existing right - turn into the site that will remain. • Does the state or county have future plans for an overpass in this location? Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 727 9.A.4.e Response: The County has a long-range plan for a fly -over at this location that was proposed several years ago. It is uncertain as to when/if those plans will be developed. • Questions were raised by Jacob Winge (President of the East Naples Civic Association), regarding the viability of one or two fast-food restaurants being developed on the site. It was suggested that the applicant consider adding commercial use (retail or office) to the first floor. Response: Mixed use within the self -storage building is not viable. Limits related to access such as the right-in/right-out access on Tamiami Trail East, and no access through the CVS parcel (directly west of the subject site) to Collier Boulevard. The residents that are directly impacted are those to the north n falling Waters, and they support the proposed self -storage use. The existing Stor-All adjacent to the property was at 100% capacity within 6 months. There is an additional vacant one -acre lot immediately adjacent to the west of the proposed self -storage parcel that will ultimately be developed, providing for a mixed commercial use project. Also, the other three quadrants of this Activity Center have significant amounts of retail, restaurant, and personal services. These are large, deeper development parcels, which accommodate these types of uses. • The current building that houses the sheriff's offices, do we know the function at that location? Response: We do not have information on that building or use. • Comments were made by the HOA President for Falling Waters, as follows: "...we moved there for the peace and quiet, the less people and traffic in the area is most desired. The traffic at that corner is really bad, and we would not want any additional traffic in that area. The Stor-All owners have been great neighbors to us through this process and have been very helpful to our neighborhood." The meeting concluded at approximately 6:08 PM. Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 728 9.A.4.e :43adij WSW Niallit's, PART OFTHE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 HOLE MONTES ASSOCIATES INC 950 ENCORE WAY #200 NAPLES, FL 34110 ATTN Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared who on oath says that they serve as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published In said newspaper on dates Ilsted,.Afflant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper, 6/20/2022 Subscribed and sworn to before on June 20th, 2022 atary; tole Cout f Brown My commis ..i expires.'. .69 3 PUBLICATION COST: $1,008.00 AD NO: GC10899812 CUSTOMER NO: 530712 PO#: PUBLIC NOTICE AD SIZE: DISPLAY -==•-sue NANCY HEYRMAN Notary Public State Of Wisconsin Packet Pg. 7 9771 9.A.4.e The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President/CEO of Hole Montes, Inc. and Paula N.C. McMichael, AICP of Hole Montes, Inc. on behalf of the property owner at the following time and location: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, The Auditorium 300 Tower Road, Naples FL, 34113 The following formal application has been made to Collier County: RZ-PL-20210002658 - A petition to rezone the subject property from the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to the Heavy Commercial District (C-5) has been submitted to Collier County for approval. The request is for 5.5t acres located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Blvd, and within Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. In compliance with the Land DevelopmentCode requirements, aNeighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this petition and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, The Auditorium, 300 Tower Road, Naples FL, 34113. 3a' N ' ttTS Aiit�St: Subictt Site •o s to - > err v r•:L•—,,, Location Map }4 Stor•AII C•5 Rezone. Iltt la,!pp�q �:•� !w•:a taL•6:r :r,Vr'v �-.^ .,�"� ______. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners and Collier County staff. Zoom is being provided as an option to those electing not to attend the meeting in person. However, if technical difficulties arise with Zoom, the technical difficulties will not be grounds to invalidate the meeting. If you would like to participate via Zoom or view a video of the meeting, please email us at NeighborhoodMeeting@hmeng.com and we will send a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to NeighborhoodMeeting@ hmeng.com. Please reference Stor-All Storage Rezone in subject line. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President/CEO, Hole Montes, Inc. ` 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-254-2000, email: bobmulhere@hmeng.com Packet Pg. 7 0771 9.A.4.e IRM HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS PLANNERS - SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way • Naples, Florida 34110 • Phone 239.254.2000 • Fax: 239.254.2099 June 20, 2022 Re: Stor-All Storage Rezone (PL-20210002658) HM File No. 2021.115 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President/CEO and Paula N. C. McMichael, AICP, Vice President of Hole Montes, Inc., on behalf of the applicant, have filed the following formal application with Collier County Growth Management: RZ-PL-20210002658 - A petition to rezone the subject property from the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to the Heavy Commercial District (C-5) has been submitted to Collier County for approval. The request is for 5.5± acres located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Blvd, and within Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. 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 petition and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, The Auditorium, 300 Tower Road, Naples FL, 34113. Zoom is being provided as an option to those electing not to attend the meeting in person. However, if technical difficulties arise with Zoom, the technical difficulties will not be grounds to invalidate the meeting. If you would like to participate via Zoom or view a video of the meeting, please email us at NeighborhoodMeeting@bMeng.com and we will send a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to NeighborhoodMeeting@bmeng.com. Please reference Stor-All Storage Rezone in subject line. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President/CEO RJM/sek H:\2021\2021115\WP\NIM\NIM Property Owner Letter (6-20-2022).docx Naples • Fort Myers Packet Pg. 731 ((ZN) auozam e6eao;S II`d aoIS - 899Z000�ZOZ]d : 8USZ) s;uownaoa WIN - Cl WV :;uauayaePV Q N NG o Cl) pia F *.;:;Ln u U O — �a Q u V) O 4.J Ln N 0 0 a= 0 00 N N ti o o o ��GP mZaLL n Z D ai �� a O ��. 9.A.4.e AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance. (Signature of Applicant) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Affidavit of Compliance was acknowledged before me this 20thth day of June 2022 by means of K physical presence or online notarization, by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President/CEO of Hole Montes, Inc., who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification. Signature of Notary Public (Notary Seal) S�. hv��iP Ka v I Printed ame of Notary t Y►u'., STEPHANIEKAROL ®Notary Public - State of Florida : Commission M GG 965839 of n° My Comm. Expires Mar 9, 2024 Bonded through National Notary Assn. HA202I\2021115MM M Affidavit of Compliance (6-20-2022).doc Packet Pg. 733 ((ZN) euozam 06eao;S JIV ao1S - 999Z000I,ZOZ-1d : S£6SZ) s}uawnooQ WIN - Cl PV :;uauayoellV A u 00 W N W O O O Z Cl ON W 00 zw 0 u 0 P4 0 O� �a �a H 0 VJ ►�, 9F cs N cs A. iF dF c a U, N U C O O t O CL fl O w vj N C N = -C � C 10 a o a N L y a, 4- � 'a aoi m 3 o s to H y v'E= m 0 L o L p .� N > O p ++ (Q U L 4j N1 c C a y O y oa m U E o ao y U ) R7 CL > 3 U .�In ��E`° +r tm o G w9 C w 'm a m •� a� U L L% i � Y [0 O V, (9 C m m � rr tw = N O u p Fa >p°J3 U L o u O L O fl 7 u i fl O u ® C 41 .- 41 d 0 y U C L UJ > IA ,A th Q1 > _ rN O 7 V O L U Ul C M O Y o m J 41 m v- . E o 3 o = ,,, c M a, t U v M%, N L V d � lei is 1 s � id. N N O o �iL Z G �1 Q ((ZN) euozab 06eao;S JIV ao1S - 8S9Z000I,ZOZ-1d : S£6SZ) s}uawnooQ WIN - Cl PV :;uauayoellV V H ZZ W N W o CD I� cq w N U OONH ZWa� �/ F"PW "1 OQP-4 �aA F--q z� O H �j a N cs N Q a� � L1 Ga ,a c :.Y U) N N c v s U p O µ. c c s p o 2 8 c :N o � °c `m a E a A o ,o �s �� m c a o c 4 0 M �° cn L E °1 m ,o a a) a) 3�s Fn 'E s 0 c > y- O }+ L O O 7 a) >• * O 4 �p 1 m U c c � al 3 LO bnc. c c cs� N O � 7 U o °° N U > f6 •3 O N R > 3 N E ++ to O U M w a) ++ c m 'm fl. E .� a� E tca c 0 n.aon� y f0 O - _��_ a a N i yi o ��72 U O � OaU)3 U H L to O U O L •_ c O .i2 � U L Q >• 0 U m c y O tv �_� to aJ a) U h f/1 N H m Y C d p O U p y ) a) ca a) o M Z s a, 4 + E E L O O c tOn 4- C N c .p a) t L) -af U N N � v W �iJ I� c U � j C `QQ 3Q � s Z � 3 4 l� v 1 1 L J ((ZN) euozab 06eao;S JIV ao1S - 999Z000I,ZOZ-1d : S£6SZ) s}uawnooQ WIN - Cl PV :;uauayoellV ►E7 .O to a c U Q1 N � cu E E U C O O C O O .00 p� CL Q M O o yj C a1 3 t- � a o s -0 a o p fa � E L 61 u 4- a) a) 3 � n a'=aj c `o aj o 4� u. c c L O O 3 a) > Z. O II +� m U c c � a� m L t,41rba O UO cu a v0, s E U U o °° I ?, � fII U M -p c c O c 0 'm a m E .: aj +� c v t Q1 c c 3 o Q-bn=, ai O O , 41 M �'a o -° o >, p U 3 U Enaj m -O U O 4, L c O m O v 3 O v CUO. A O U ro C 4, ._ O V1 .p a) 4+ 7 > N p 'ru +O+ ai N U .0 L aJ {!1 N tn tn Ln Y h o U CU O L U al C M a) d�-1 o m a 'p m 4' += E 3 L o -c U)c m m— (U L v saj f U M� N N N L 'Q ca W CL c co U N N L .a 'C a a r W t� Z 2416 FWBR IV TRUST 6810 BEACH RESORT DR #2410 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1514 ANGELHOW FAMILY TRUST II 55 JANETTERRACE NEW HARTFORD, NY 13413--- 2820 BEACH RESORT LLC 4365 EAST.BAY CIR LEWIS CENTER, OH 43035 --- 0 BUOY, HARRY W & EVELLAJ 6604 CARLISLE BEND SPRINGFIELD, IL 62711 --- 0 CHRISTOPHER, ANTHONY & JOAN E 37 DELHAM AVE (UPPER) BUFFALO, NY 14216 --- 0 COVIELLO, JOSEPH G & ELLEN Z 6830 BEACH RESORT DR #4 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 DIGNAM, BONNIE 214 RIVER DR APPLETON, WI 54915--- 1211 DRAKE,CAROL A 6810 BEACH RESORT DR #3 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1512 DZUBIC, ISIVET 5118 201ST N FOREST LAKE, MN 55025 --- 0 ELDEEB, MOHAMED & KATHLEEN 6840 BEACH RESORT DR #2714 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1529 9.A.4.e 09G8/091q@ AJaAV oane algltedwoo ww L9 x ww gZ tewJol ap attanbli3 09'18/0919®AJ9AV ql!m algltedwoa ,9/9 Z x j ozls lagel , 6790 BEACH RESORT DR UN 8 LLC ABC LIQUORS INC 3211 SOUTH EMERALD AVE 8989 S ORANGE AVE CHICAGO, IL 60616 --- 0 ORLANDO, FL 32824 --- 0 BATES TRUST NO CAB 98-2 929 COLLIER CT #6102 MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 --- 0 ARNOLD S DEJONG REV LIV TRUST 6849 W FOSS ROAD MONEE, IL 60449 --- 0 BEES, KAROLYN 6830 BEACH RESORT DR #2605 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 BIBIK, RAYMOND W & KAY F i 6800 BEACH RESORT DR #12 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1508 BUTTICE, DUANE L & MARYROSE C ii i CARANO, DENISE 6810 BEACH RESORT DRIVE #8 7736 CORNELL AVE NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 i i SAINT LOUIS, MO 13130 --- 2111 CIPRIANO, DIEGO & CAROLINE �I i , COLLIER CNTY 63 LIPTON LANE I TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY WILLISTON PARK, NY 11596 --- 0 i 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S. NAPLES, FL 34104 --- 0 i i i COX TR, DENNIST i �i i DAVIS, WILLIAM & LUCILLE FRANCES K COX TR i 6 BRIAR PATCH DR COX LIVING TRUST WESTERLY, RI 02891 --- 0 UTD 09/28/10 5708 PRAIRIE STONE DR MC FARLAND, WI 53558--- 8461 I, DIPPOLD, LEE MARTIN i DOTZENROTH, RONALD T & LINDA C DEBBIE ANN DIPPOLD I 35152 MEADOW LN 6810 BCH RESORT DR #2416 FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48335--- 2534 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 i i i DUNN, ANTOINETTE 8375 SIERRA MEADOWS BLVD #348 NAPS -ES, FL 34113 --- 0 ' i it E W OLSON & J E OLSON TRUST 242 S PRINCETON AVE l ! ITASCA, IL 60143---2175 i ELIA, BARBARAJ 6810 BEACH RESORT DR #7 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1513 i 1i label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160181160 DUNN, GEORGE R & MARYT 6820 BEACH RESORT DR #3 NAPLES,.FL 34114--- 1517 EATON FAMILY TRUST 20036 POLLYANNA DR LIVONIA, MI 48152---1275 ELL!017, JUDY L 6820. BEACH RESORT DR #15 NAPLES, FL 34114---1520 Packet Pg. 737 09L8/09L5®fi1aAV oane olglpedwoo ww Lq x ww 9Z tewloi ap 9119nb113 09!I-8/09 [9®AJaAV y?.lm algltedwoo „8/9 Z X „G azls lagel FACCO,7ESSICAT FALLING WATERS BEACH RESORT 24531 WOODSAGE DR MASTER ASSOCIATION INC BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 1330 RAIL HEAD BLVD STE 4 NAPLES, FL 34110---8428 FILIPPO, NICHOLAS 0 & ARLENE A 13 HARROGATE CT BLDG U WASHINGTON TWP, NJ 08080 --- 0 FRANK D COLLINGBOURNE TRUST MICHELLE D COLLINGBOURNETRUST 20324 CASLEMAINE AVE ESTERO, FL 3392$ --- 0 GALIANO, LINDA 6830 BEACH RESORT DR #7 NAPLES, FL. 34114 --- 0 GORDON JOHN BAT ES REV LIVING TRUST 17437 AVERHILL BLVD• MACOMB, MI 48042--- 4139 HABER, NICHOLAS J & BARBARA 6840 BEACH RESORT DR #1 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 HAMMER, KIMBERLYJANE G790 BEACH RESORT DR #13 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HEATHER M LESLIE TRUST 6840 BEACH RESORT DR #7 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1527 JOAN BARKELLTRUST 606 FOREST RD LA GRANGE PK, IL 60526--- 5617 JOSEPH D EBERT REV TRUST SUZANNE M EBERT REV TRUST 30026JUDSON LANE DAGSBORO,.DE 19939--- 3381 FLAMINGO TRUST 3 WATERVIEW HEIGHTS RD PO BOX 529 NORTH TRURO, MA 02652 --- 0 FRED CLINTON GENRICH & KATHRYN LYNN GENRICH LIVING TRUST 421 WATERFORD DRIVE CARTERSVILLE, GA 30120 --- 0 GAVOR, LINDA, 6560 BEACH RESORT DRIVE #1 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 GORENCE, THOMAS J & HOLLY V l 56205 VILLAGE DR LA QUINTA, CA 92253 --- 0 i, HADLOCK, DOUGLAS M &JILL M f 50 HIGHVIEW TER i MANCHESTER, NH 03104--- 4718 li iil HAMMER, KIMBERLYJANE 1 6790 BEACH RESORT DRIVE #14 i NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 i i ..I ii i HEDLUND, SHARON i. 59 PEACH TREE LN MOUNT SINAI, NY 11766 --- 0 I. 'I I I JOANNE M RUSSELL REV TRUST ! i 1225 DAISY LANE i j EAST LANSING, MI 48823 --- 0 •il i ;I li li: i is JOUW'STRA, PETER & SHARLENE 6840 BEACH RESORT DR #10 i i NAPLES,'FL 34114--- 1528 it i I I � I I� label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/81'60 9.A.4.e a FERRAIUOLO FAMILY IRREV TRUST 50 GARY PL STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314---0 FOSTER, WALTER & KRISTY 1425 MCSHAY DR WEST LAFAYETTE, IN 47906 --- 0 FULLER, ROBERT & JOAN M 2591 FURLONG RD ._. DOYCESTOWN, PA 18902--- 1689 GIFFORD, RONALD M & KAREN J 6830 BEACH RESORT DR #9 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 GREENLEE, DAVID D &JUDITH K 3104 EAST WASHINGTON STREET BLOOMI,NGTON, IL 61704 ---0 HADLOCK, DOUGLAS M & JILL M 50 HIGHVIEW TERRACE MANCHESTER, NH 03104 --- 0 HARRIS TRUST 5733 GRAND RIDGE CT TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49685 --- 0 JACOBSON, BARRY & GAIL R 6840 BEACH RESORT DR #11 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1528 JOSEPH D EBERT REV TRUST SUZANNE M EBERT REV TRUST 30026JUDSON LANE DAGSBORO, DE 19939---0 KESTEN, LOUIS J & LAURA E 62031NTERLAKEN WAY PROSPECT, KY 40059--- 8560 Packet Pg. 7 8771 i KINSELLA, DEBORAH 10739 S PULASKI RD CHICAGO, IL 60655---3937 KRISANDA, RONALD GERALDINE M KRISANDA 6560 BEACH RESORT DR #3 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 7545 09 [9/0915@ A19AV Dane alg ledwoo Will C9 x Will 9Z tewa01 ap 01}911bl}3 09;G9/09 Gq® AJaAV qm algljedwoo „8/9 Z x „l. ozis lagel KRG 951 & 41 LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 --- 0 ! i LAVIN, PATRICIA ELLEN 6820 BEACH RESORT DR #12 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1519 ! II I i LEON, ROBERT N ! LETZNER, GEORGE H & JOY A 7857 FIRESTONE LANE i 6800 BEACH RESORT DR #14 WASHINGTON TWP, MI 48094--- 3443 NAPLES, FL 341.14--- 1509 MARTIN, IRENE 6790 BEACH RESORT.DR #2 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1501 MILLER, ANDREW &• WENDY 12 EAST DR LINWOOD, NJ 68221 --- 0 NANTZ FAMILY TRUST 1281 RIALTO WAY #202 NAPLES, FL 34:114 --- 0 ONEILL, JOHN. 6810 BEACH RESORT DR #13 NAPLES, FL' '34114-•-0 PHILLIP C BOYLE REV TRUST 6820 BEACH RESORT DR #8 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1519 ROSCOE APARTMENTS LLC 114 SUBURBAN ACRES CARMICHAELS', PA 15320 --- 0 RUSSELL REALTY TRUST % NANCY RUSSELL 6790 BEACH RESORT DR NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 MARTIN, PAUL A & BARBARA A 6820 BEACH RESORT- DR #6 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1518 MORGANTE, NOEMI AMIE 6840 BEACH RESORT DRIVE #2704 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 OCONNOR; DANIEL J & PATRICIA M 6830 BEACH RESORT DT #2606 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 OST, DANIEL LEE CAROL Z HAGERMAN 6830 BEACH RESORT DR #2608 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 RINGENBACH, JAMES T & AMALIA 538 THORN DALE AVE ELK GROVE VILLAG, IL 60007--70 i' ROSSER, BRUCE & LAURIE E 126 PIPERS INN DR FOUNTAINVILLE, PA 18923 --- 0 SCHULTZ, RANDALL D 6560 BCH RESORT DR#4 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 i label size 1" x 2.5/8" compatible with Avery 65160/81160 9.A.4.e KRG 951 & 41 LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 --- 0 LEMANSKI, DENNIS R & BARBARA A 26034 YORKSHIRE PL GROSSE ILE, MI 48138-:-1886 MAGNANI, THOMAS N & HELEN 42 UNION PL ISLIP, NY 11751--- 4714 MEYER, JEROME A & GAIL B 38 KALAN CIR FAIRRELD, CT 06824 --- 0 NADEAU, DAVID A & SUSAN 6560 BEACH RESORT DR #2 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 OGGERI, PATRICK MICHAEL JACQUELINE ANN OGGERI 160 DAHLIA DR MAHOPAC, NY 10541 --- 0 PAMELA R BALY REVOCABLE TRUST 403 N PROSPECT MANOR MOUNT PROSPECT, IL 60056- 0 RONALD & CAROL VAN ANTWERP JOINT REV TRUST 6830 BEACH RESORT DR 42611 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 RTG LLC 1, CVS DR #7899-01 WOONSOCKET, RI 02895---6146 SCULLY, JOHN K & ELIZABETH A 351 UNION ST HOLBROOK, MA 02343--- 1330 Q Packet Pg. 739 SEILER JR' RICHARD R KAREN LEAHY-SEILER 6830 BEACH RESORT DR 42 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1521 SIMMS PROPERTIES LLC 18536 STONEY POINT RD KING GEORGE, VA 22485 --- 0 STOR-ALLTAMIAMI TRAIL LLC 141 SE 1ST STREET DEERFIELD BCH, FL 33441 --- 0 STORESMART NAPLESILC 1146 CANTON ST ROSWELL,:GA 30075-=-0 SURABIAN TR, RONALD J JOHN H SURABIAN TRUST ANTOINE17E M SURABIAN TRUST PO BOX 58 WEST HARWICH, MA 02671 --- 0 SZABO, RONALD W & JANICE A 14512 66TH .CT OAK FOREST, IL 60452--- 4803 UNITED TELEPHONE CO OF FLA ATTN: PROPERTY TAX 1025 ELDORADO BLVD BROOMFIELD, CO 80021 --- 0 09 [2/09 [�o AJaAV oane olgltedwoo ww Lg x WW, gZ;ewJo} ap a1190113 0%9/09190 AnAV ql!m alg ledwoo „8/9 Z x «L azls loge) SHARYN E SOLOMON REV TRUST 6560 BEACH RESORT DR #13 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 SOLANO, CARLOS & GINA M 1439 MEEGAN WAY ELK GROVE VILLAG, IL 60007 --- 0 i' i WHITE, LAMES W & GLENDA F 6390 WILLOW RD W BLOOMFIELD, MI 48324--- 2047 i WORSDALE, PAUL & JOAN M KATIE WORSDALE 6590 BEACH RESORT DR UNIT 9 NAPLES, FL 34114--=0 i I BELANGER, MARC NATHALIE SIMARD 3537 CH ST LOUIS #510 QUEBEC CITY G1W 0B4 CANADA STOR-ALLTAMIAMI TRAIL LLC 141 SE 1ST STREET DEERFIELD BEACH, FL. 33441 --- 0 STRATFORD FAMILYTRUST 6800 BEACH RESORT DR #2304 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 SUTO, BARBARA 24 DUDLEY ST I WEST MILFORD, NJ 07480---4323 it it TIITF /DOT /ST OF FL DOUGLAS BLDG 3900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD i TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399--- 3000 i` VILLARI III, PHILIP A ANGELA MINOLFO VILLARI ' 398 W VALLEY FORGE RD KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406--- 1881 i WIGHTMAN, GARY S 6560 BEACH RESORT DR #2807 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 i �i ii 9.A.4.e 016 - SILVA, JOHN L 6830 BEACH RESORT DR #2603 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 SPINELLI, LOUIS R & ANITA H 6840 BEACH RESORT DR #2712 NAPLES, FL 34114--- 1528 STOR-ALLTAMIAMI TRAIL LLC 141 SW 1ST ST DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33441 --- 0 SUNSET OF NAPLES LLC 5194 SEAHORSE AVE NAPLES,-FL 34103---0 SWEET KORMAN C &JACQUELINE K 13927 DEVIAR DR CENTREVILL.E, VA 20120--- 1224 ZUPCICH, FRANK & LISA I i i 640 10TH AVE NEW HYDE PARK, NY. 11040 --- 0 i� ;I BURLING, GEOFFREY & BARBARA' WOODGATES MELFORD RD CAVENDISH SUFFOLK COL) BAD ENGLAND i label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 65160/8160 E+:,:.,,.+.,, a,. +,..-.,,..+ nc ,,,.,,.., c7 ,,,....,,.—,,+;kIn ll„ — OFiC/1/41 Cn UAP - DEVONSHIRE LLC 1401 QUAIL ST #140 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 --- 0 WEINRAUCH, JOHN R & JUDITH A 6840 BEACH RESORT DR #2703 NAPLES, FL 34114---1526 ' WOLTERS, MARY 6790 BEACH RESORT DR #15 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 ARMSTRONG, FRANCIS & DENISE 3041 GOLDEN ORCHARD DRIVE MISSISSAUGA L4X 2V1 CANADA CERNAT, DAN & GETA 7 MALAREN RD MAPLE L6A 1E5 CANADA Packet Pg. 7 0771 CLAVET, WILLIAM A & TARYL D 1460 OLIVER ROAD THUNDER BAY P7G 1N6 CANADA PIRJOL, DANIELA 35 LONGWOOD AVENUE RICHMOND HILL L4E 4AS CANADA Falling Waters Beach Resort Master Association, Inc, P.O. Box 214 Estero, FL 33929 Falling Waters Beach Resort IV c/o Estero Property Management P.O. Box 214 Estero, FL 33929 09 G9/0915@ AJaAV oau algljedwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z tewJo} op 91jan;bI13 09'[9/0919@, AJaAV qm algltedwoo „g/9 Z x ., t azls laq> DUBOIS, GILLES DIANE BERGEVIN SEBASTIEN DUBOIS ET AL 32 RUE VIGNEAULT SAINT CONSTANT J5A 1N8 CANADA 9.A.4.e mi EL-MASRI, MOURAD S & ELAINE L TANYA K EL-MASRI SHAHIRAJ EL-MASRI 25 MAPLE HATCH CLOSE GODALMING SURREY GU71TQ ENGLAND East Naples Civic Association 8595 Collier Blvd., Ste.107-49 Falling Waters Beach Resort I Naples, FL 34114-3556 c/o Paramont Property Mgmt, LLC i 5629 Strand Blvd, Ste. 412 Naples, FL 34110 Falling Waters Beach Resort II ; Falling Waters Beach Resort III c/o Estero Property Management c/o Cambridge Mgmt of SW FL, Inc. P.O. Box 214 l 2335 Tamiami Trail North, Ste. 402 Estero, FL 33929 i Naples, FL 34103 'I III II: ;I� Ili 1" _ I 111 ,l I it I� ill 111 ill 'i li I l i label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 .I -'- --'---,, — ____ .. — —.v __..,___.:w:,. -.— n......, AC' icn/Olen w d E 0 0 z 0 Q E Q Packet Pg. 741 9.A.4.f SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petition of 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 requirements 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 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 petition or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s). NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP, PRESIDENT/CEO WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPERTY NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER PL-20210002658. Hole Montes, Inc.. 950 Encore Way SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President/CEO Naples, FL 34110 NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY, STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The f re,going instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 17tn day of April 2023, by means of physical presence or o ine notarization, by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President/CEb, who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. ""A Pu"'•.. STEPHANIE KAROLKow• �X'i Notary Public • State of Florida f ' Commission k GG 965839 Signatu of Notary Public or f` My Comm. Expires Mar 9, 2024 Bonded through National Notary Assn. e vueo y Commission Expires: Printed Name of Notary Public (Stamp with serial number) Packet Pg. 742 9.A.4.f . � W � � LU Z w N r r ti p p [n _ W Z � H (Y) cv Co ® Wz NrLo -00O®2:v�N LL ZWN QMQZW Ix �O I ��u, w LuI > CDQONOz� � Z CV) �0za N Z NCN O'Z<o O- Q � 0- IT Ui CN 2i 0 w O N��—cn , = JzaWoJ� .J c Z Qp =0p—Z Oa- )()<02w � A � CL LL' ICL _ 00 J Packet Pg. 743