Loading...
CCPC Agenda 09/20/2024 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 9/13/2024 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 September 20, 2024 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. September 2024 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 9/13/2024 1.Pledge of Allegiance 2.Roll Call by Secretary 3.Addenda to the Agenda 4.Planning Commission Absences 5.Approval of Minutes A.February 1, 2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes B.August 1, 2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes C.August 15, 2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes 6.BCC Report - Recaps 7.Chairman's Report 8.Consent Agenda 9.Public Hearings A.Advertised 1.PL20240004018 - Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA - Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay and specifically amending the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of the Future Land Use Element, to eliminate the cap on the size of a town and include qualified target industries as a goods and services use, and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Commerce. [Coordinator: James Sabo, Zoning, Planning Manager] September 2024 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 9/13/2024 2.PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA) - 3880 Tollgate Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard, north of Beck Boulevard - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Specifically amending The Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map Series to add the Tollgate Housing Parcel to property designated as Urban, Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Activity Center #9 to allow construction of 110 multi-family rental units with affordable housing on 5 acres of land also known as parcel 11 of the commercial areas, “A” parcels, on the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan, As an alternative to commercial uses, and furthermore directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce. The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, North of Beck Boulevard at 3880 Tollgate Boulevard in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Parker Klopf, Planner III) (Companion Item PUDA PL20230007874, Tollgate Commercial Center and DOA PL20230007875, Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI) 3.PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - 3880 Tollgate Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard, north of Beck Boulevard - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-10, as amended, the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), within the Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay (CBIIZO), by amending the PUD document to allow development of 110 multi-family rental units with affordable housing on Parcel 11 of the Commercial Areas, "A" Parcels, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, as an alternative to commercial uses; and by providing an effective date. The subject property is located in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] (Companion to GMPA- PL20230007876, Tollgate Housing Subdistrict and DOA-PL20230007875, Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI) 4.PL20230007875 Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment - 3880 Tollgate Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard, north of Beck Boulevard - A Resolution amending Development Order 84-1, as amended, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact by providing for: Section One, Amendments to Development Order and the Master Development Plan (Map H) to allow development of 110 multi-family rental units with affordable housing on Parcel 11 of the Commercial Areas, "A" Parcels, as shown on the Master Development Plan, as an alternative to commercial uses, comprising +/-5 acres of the Development of Regional Impact; by extending the expiration date and buildout date to August 1, 2030; Section Two, Effect of Previously Issued Development Orders, Transmittal to the Florida Department of Commerce and Effective Date. The subject property is located in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] (Companion to Item GMPA-PL20230007876, Tollgate Housing Subdistrict and PUDA- PL20230007874, Tollgate Commercial Center) September 2024 Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 9/13/2024 5.PL20230011318 - Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict - east side of Palm River Boulevard at Viking Way - An Ordinance of The Board Of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, The Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, Specifically amending The Future Land Use Element And Map series by adding The Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict to The Urban Mixed-Use District to allow up to 41 multi-family rental units. The subject property is located on the east side of Palm River Boulevard at Viking Way, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, Consisting of 2.06± 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. [Coordinator: Parker Klopf, Planner III] (Companion Item PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict) 6.PL20230011319 - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD - east side of Palm River Boulevard at Viking Way - An Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas Map or Maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Residential Multi-family-16 Zoning District (RMF-16) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD, to allow up to 41 multi-family rental units on 2.06+/- acres of property in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] (Companion to GMPA-PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict) 7.**This item was continued from the 8/15/2024 CCPC Meeting to the 9/20/2024 CCPC Meeting and further continued indefinitely*** PL20220005195- Hope Home II Institutional Sub-district -3150 62nd Street SW - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners proposing an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Urban Golden Gate Estates sub-element of the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Element and Urban Golden Gate Estates future land use map and map series to create the Hope Home II Institutional sub-district by changing the land use designation from Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district to Estates-Commercial District, Hope Home II Institutional sub-district to allow a recovery residence limited to 27 residents and three resident supervisors, and directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce. The subject property is 4.47± acres and located at 3150 62nd Street SW in section 29, township 49 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Parker Klopf Planner III] (Companion to Item PUDZ-PL20220005096) September 2024 Collier County Planning Commission Page 5 Printed 9/13/2024 8.**This item was continued from the 8/15/2024 CCPC Meeting to the 9/20/2024 CCPC Meeting and further continued indefinitely** PL20220005096 Hope Home II CFPUD -3150 62nd Street S.W.- The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), 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 Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Hope Home II CFPUD, to allow a recovery residence limited to 27 residents and three resident supervisors, and a single-family dwelling/family care facility, for property located at 3150 62nd Street S.W. in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.47± acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III] (Companion to Item GMPA-PL20220005195, Hope Home II Subdistrict) B.Noticed 10.Old Business 11.New Business 12.Public Comment 13.Adjourn 09/20/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Doc ID: 29720 Item Summary: February 1, 2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes August 1, 2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes August 15, 2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 09/20/2024 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 08/15/2024 12:03 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 08/15/2024 12:03 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch GMD Approver Completed 08/15/2024 12:03 PM Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/05/2024 4:05 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Completed 09/09/2024 8:37 AM Growth Management Community Development Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 09/13/2024 3:02 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 09/20/2024 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 6 February 1, 2024 Page 1 of 102 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 1, 2024 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. (attending remotely) Paul Shea Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher 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 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 2 of 102 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi, and good morning, everyone. This is the February 1, 2024, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before we take the roll, I believe Commissioner Klucik has asked to participate remotely. Are you -- are you online, Commissioner? Commissioner Klucik, are you online, sir? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, he may be on momentarily. In the meantime, I'll ask the secretary to call the roll. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sir, we have a quorum, six out of seven. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Secretary. And as far as Commissioner Klucik is concerned, he had made a request to call in, and so he may be along shortly. And I'll ask -- I guess I'll ask Mr. Miller in the control room -- is that the right person who would get that first, or would it be our folks in the back? MR. BOSI: Chair, Mike Bosi, zoning director. It would be Ailyn. She's coordinating the Zoom. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Ms. Padron, just interrupt us when -- if and when he dials in, please. Thank you. Addenda to the agenda? Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: We have no changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on February 15, 2024. Anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- family affair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You had told us that. Anyone else? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just looking right now. I think I should be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. It looks like we'll have a quorum. Hope so. Same question for the meeting following that, which is March 7, 2024. Anyone know if he or she won't be there? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 3 of 102 COMMISSIONER VERNON: I will not be there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Once again, it sounds like we should have a quorum. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I can hear you now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, good, Commissioner Klucik. We'll go through the formality, sir, of asking you to just give us a statement of extraordinary circumstances, and then we'll take a vote. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I'm sorry. I had planned to come, but I had last-minute client urgent matters come up that I have to attend to today, and the three extra hours of, you know, driving in and back will make that impossible for me, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understand completely. I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve by phone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. Approval of the minutes. We have before us those of our January 4, 2024, meeting. Any corrections, changes, or additions to them? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of approving the January 4, 2024, meetings minutes, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passes unanimously. Thank you much. BCC report, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On the January 23rd Board of County Commissioners' meeting, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 4 of 102 the PUD rezone for Mattson at the location at Vanderbilt was continued to the February 27th Board of County Commissioner meeting. On the summary agenda, the Board approved an LDC amendment for communication towers. That's the first meeting of two, actually. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Let's see. Anything further about the BCC? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director. Just, as Commissioner Schmitt had pointed out, the Board did approve 375 -- or $3,750,000 of the surtax money to be allocated for purchasing of a property for an affordable housing project on 951. It's -- it was -- it's the first of the surtax allocation for a project to develop affordable housing within the -- and the project, interestingly enough, is going to utilize Live Local because it's currently a C-3 zoned parcel. So this board -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We won't hear it. MR. BOSI: No, and the Board won't hear it. It's an administrative approval. So it's a unique situation, but the Board, you know, values and prioritized the need for additional workforce housing in such a manner that they went to a circumstance of allowing a project to go. So that's going to bypass the public hearing process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How many units is that; do you know? Do you recall? Well over 200, wasn't it? MR. BOSI: It was -- I thought it was 250 was ringing in my head. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: With an allowable height of 75 feet zoned, actual 85? MR. BOSI: Yes. That was within one mile of the highest allowed approved -- not developed, but approved height within the area is 75 feet zoned and 85 feet actual height. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. You were right. It's one mile, not five. I thought it was five miles. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's see. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, nothing there today. ***So we move right into public hearings advertised. The first matter is PL20220006213. This is the SR846 Land Trust Earth Mine conditional-use amendment application. Ex parte disclosure -- or excuse me. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. 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? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures, please, starting with Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I did look at the -- briefly look at the transcript from the previous time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. In my case, it's matters of public record, meetings with staff, and a communication with applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials only. And I would like to note, I understand my fellow commissioners received a lot of e-mails on this. I've only received one, so I'm not sure what's going on with the e-mails. Ms. Padron was -- the only one I got was that she forwarded, and then it went into my Collier County e-mail as well as my personal e-mail. But I had not received any of the other e-mails, and I was told there's numerous e-mails that have been sent by the public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think up to -- at least in my case, up to and including yesterday 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 5 of 102 evening I probably got 40. And your name was on there, and your e-mail address, so something's going wrong. I guess it needs to be looked into. MR. BOSI: Staff can reach out to IT and see what -- if there's anything they can identify as to why Commissioner Schmitt wouldn't have been receiving those e-mails. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And neither did Commissioner Shea, right? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I received several. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Several? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Both of our names are on this one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the only one I received. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very strange. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It looks like the other ones didn't -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Disclosures, Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah. Staff materials and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. I also have to make the comment that I, too, only received the one from Ailyn that was sent to me. And a couple weeks ago, I did ask IT to remove the Collier e-mail site and forward everything to my personal site because I've had so much difficulty getting into that Collier site. So evidently something has not taken place that should have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to talk a little about this before we call on Mr. Yovanovich. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just meeting with the staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. This has nothing to do with the applicant's situation, but I just -- I wonder if there's something that we need to do or action we need to take. As I say, I got about 40 e-mails as recently as yesterday evening, and I noticed that they were all addressed to the same recipients, the Board of County Commissioners individually and the planning commissioners individually, and staff. Mr. Bosi's name was on them, for instance. MR. BOSI: I did not receive any e-mails yesterday related to the earth mining proposal, so I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I better -- I better retract that part. I'm not sure whether -- I'm thinking of something else. But I'm quite sure that the names of the individual commissioners were on there. Does anybody -- I mean, is there something we should do about this? Again, it's not the fault of the applicant, but it's just something that -- MR. BOSI: Every e-mail that we received up until the distribution date of the package to the Planning Commission is within the backup. So within the backup material that you received, there's a number of e-mails that staff had received up until that date. So what I think we would be dealing with is e-mails that were displaced that for some reason didn't reach the planning commissioners between the distribution date, which was -- I believe was Friday of last week and today. So we can -- I think you -- the distribution -- the recognition of those e-mails, I think, could serve adequately if you could describe if they were in support or were they -- were they in support, or were they not in support, and I think that can be -- I mean, that's a simple conveyance to your fellow commissioners as to what those e-mails contained. CHAIRMAN FRYER: As I recall it, they were nearly unanimous, or unanimously, against it, but I feel uncomfortable characterizing them without the planning commissioners seeing them themselves. But it is what it is, and I -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It sounds like he got about 40. I got between five and 10. Joe received one, and you received one. All of the ones I received were against. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 6 of 102 Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I didn't check it yesterday. Probably the day before is the last time I checked my Collier e-mail. I just -- and I don't have the fond [sic] right now to check it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But if they came in yesterday -- but other than that, I know the e-mail's working, that's not a problem, because I do still get e-mail through my account. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I'd just say this isn't a permanent fix but temporary fix, somebody, I think -- you said that you're getting them through your personal or want them through your -- I'd like mine through my personal -- work. That's easier for me. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. I had requested to IT to remove the active Collier County e-mail account and direct/forward everything to my personal account, because I'm on that all day long. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I agree with Randy. For me -- and I don't think it's a permanent fix, but just for now, please send them to my work address. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're wanting your personal e-mail to be posted on the web page so people can reach you; that's what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. I'm already on four of my other businesses, so if people want me, they're going to find me. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. My website has my e-mail address, so it's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I could make a comment. We recommend that you do use the county's website because of the public records law, and you could be opening up your personal computers for, you know, at least the County Attorney's review because we'd have to review and identify exempt documents from disclosures, so -- and I caution you with use of your personal accounts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a very good point. Vice Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was going to say the same thing. I would definitely prefer it going to Collier County e-mail. That's public record. It's there. Even if I delete it in my account, it's still in the public record because it's part -- it's captured, and if I understand, it's still available for discovery. So I prefer not to have it sent to my private e-mail. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think the resolution is to first consult with the IT department, and if the Chair could send to Mike and I a couple of the e-mails that you've received that were not timely, and we can consult with them and see what can be done so those aren't blocked. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it's just a matter -- they could not -- some of them may have my name on there but have the wrong e-mail address, because there was a change two or three years ago from Collier gov to whatever it is now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But the Collier net still works. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mike, I retract my request. Do not send it to my personal e-mail. It would be a full-time job for them to look through my e-mail. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Before -- before we go into the -- I was just going to ask Mr. Yovanovich, I assume, sir, that you do not object to our proceeding without the benefit of these e-mails? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, but if I could just chime in. There's got to be a way to notify an applicant of e-mails that are coming into you-all so we at least are not -- we can respond appropriately, if necessary, because it's really not fair to us if we're excluded from that. And I don't want to spend all day ex parte -- asking you-all questions about what ex parte you may or may not have received. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 7 of 102 So if we could find a way that we can be provided copies of that as well, because the only thing we see in the packet is from a Mr. Dixon, and there were a few from Mr. Dixon. One of them was asking for your e-mail addresses. So other than that, I wasn't aware of any until I think I spoke to you, Mr. Chairman, that you had received -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- several e-mails. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's interesting to me because I assume -- and I'll bet other planning commissioners did -- that applicants are seeing all these e-mails. MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- if you look at those, usually we're not a cc on those e-mails. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. A question for staff. Shouldn't -- shouldn't they be sent as a matter of course to the applicant? MR. BOSI: When the e-mails are received prior to distribution of the packet, everything that staff receives is put into the packet that the Planning Commission is to review for the material for the upcoming hearing. We have -- we have not, I think, made a matter of practice of forwarding those to the applicant. They -- everything we receive before distribution, though, is available to the applicant the second that the agenda packet and all the materials is made available. But just speaking with Mr. Bellows, we're going to stress to our applicants to make sure that the applicants are provided copies prior to the distribution of the packet. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Part of the problem is -- maybe I'm wrong -- is somebody sends out a list of addresses for all the commissioners, and they send them -- they don't even copy you. MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you don't get them, and how do you get them to Mr. Yovanovich? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It puts the burden on us. MR. BOSI: If staff is not included in it, staff is unaware that these e-mails exist. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And in that case, somebody on the Planning Commission needs to copy Mike Bosi so that staff has it. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I received e-mails that staff wasn't copied on. I forward them to Ailyn when I get them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Well, that works, too. And I apologize, Court Reporter, I'm talking over people. I'll try not to do that. Without further ado, Mr. Yovanovich, you may proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the property owner and applicant. With me today is Don Schrotenboer. He's the owner's rep. Mr. Arnold is the planner. Jeff Straw will be speaking to you about how the blasting actually occurs and how it's monitored, and Barry Blankenship is here to answer any question you may have about the actual operations. Before I get into too much detail on this, what we did is we also reviewed the previous minutes, and I believe it was -- there were comments about how we're currently operating and that those current operations are satisfying the neighbors as far as addressing concerns or vibrations, et cetera. So what we're going to do on the record today is codify what's currently being done. So if the operators change, any operator will have to meet the current standards. And we'll go through that in a little bit greater detail. The property is on your visualizer. It's 2,560 acres. It's an existing mine operation. It's on -- this is the Randall Curve, as we refer to it. If you all remember, we have a couple of mixed-use commercial projects on this corner. You have commercial down through here. This is Oil Well Road. And if you remember, this is Rivergrass Village. This is 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 8 of 102 Brightshore Village. Some it's in an area that is becoming more and more active as part of the development as anticipated through the Growth Management Plan. You can see on this aerial map that there are ongoing mining operations that are occurring on the site, and they have been occurring on the site since roughly the year 2000. Blasting hasn't always been part of the operations, but mining has been part of the operations since April the year 2000. Blasting has been approved subsequent to the original application, and blasting has been occurring for, you know, as you can see -- roughly around '04 to '06, I think, is when blasting started and has been occurring since -- you know, for almost 20 years at this point. And over time, the resolutions have changed and conditions have changed. And I know Mr. Sparrazza's going to talk about the surety that's part of that and other aspects of that. But there has been a requirement for a surety since, the best I can confirm, 2007 in the resolution that I've reviewed for this project. The land is designated agricultural. It's within the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. It's within receiving lands. So at some point in the future, it is anticipated that this property will be a residential development, and the zoning is in place for that to occur under your Land Development Code unless they decide to do a village. And if they do a village, we'll be back in front of you-all for that. The request is to modify the blasting area, and there will be a minimum of 1300 feet from the mine where we blast to the property boundary as part of the conditions, and as you'll -- and Wayne will take you through in greater detail where we can blast now and where we're asking to be able to blast in the future. And we've up -- we're updating a few of the conditions in the conditional-use application. As you're aware, there are currently 38 conditions, and as we go through this process, we've kind of reorganized those and got rid of the ones that have already been satisfied, so we're at 32 conditions. I'm not going to go through all of the conditions. I know you've seen those. I'm just going to hit a few of the highlights of changes to the resolution and the conditions that we're proposing since the last hearing in front of you-all that didn't occur but there was public speakers. First, we're requesting that we take out the name of the actual operator and we just be required to tell county staff who the operator is and to notify the public as to who that operator is, because there's a process where the public can ask to be on an e-mail list, and we'll do that. I didn't want to have to come back and amend the resolution if the operator's name changed, so that's the reason for that change. Conditions 25 and 26 are related to how operations are currently occurring. And Mr. Shaw [sic] will get into greater details about what this really means from a technical standpoint. But we're reducing the maximum load per hole from 100 pounds to 85 pounds of explosives, and we're reducing the number of holes per month from 1680 to 1320. So there will not be as much activity as is authorized under the current resolution. We are currently required to have three seismographs. We're adding a fourth, and Mr. Shaw will tell you where that is. And those are basically the changes from what was previously proposed as part of the conditions and as a result of our review of the previous minutes from the public comment at that time. I'm going to turn it over to Wayne to take you through the changes in the blasting areas as part of the process, and then Mr. Shaw will come up and hopefully -- he did it for me. He made it simple enough for this person to understand how the blasting actually works and how the vibrations actually work and what damage could or could not occur from the blasting operations. With that, that's a brief overview of what we're proposing. I'm available to answer any questions you want to ask now, or if you want to wait until the end of the presentation, I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one -- oh, now Commissioner Vernon is signaling. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I guess in looking at the transcript, my 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 9 of 102 recollection is that something happened on September 14th that caused the main problem. You know, my impression from last time and this time is the applicant is trying to be a good neighbor. I was a little worried about selling -- if the property sold to somebody's who's not a good neighbor, so -- and we may not be -- this may be beyond the purview of what we can do. But I want to figure out, is there any kind of teeth we can put into this if a 9/14 happens again? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there's already a process. If there's -- I don't want to -- 9/14 was -- there was a blast that occurred on 9/14. I don't want to get into whether or not that blast actually caused the damage that was alleged to have occurred as a result of a blast. I don't want to get into that. But we did come out, and we met with the neighbors, we heard their concerns, and we made adjustments to the operations. Mainly, the adjustment was -- and I know enough about blasting now to be a little bit dangerous on that topic. It starts with -- and Mr. Shaw will correct me if I'm getting this strong. It really starts with where you start the initial blast and the sequencing of the blast. So what we've done -- in that case we started away and came closer. We've now reversed that to make sure that it starts closest and goes furthest away to make sure that we're not going to have the amount of vibration that was felt on that day. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And who's the neighbor on the direction you're going now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the direction we're going to go now is away from -- make sure we're away from any neighbors, going in the opposite direction. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. But what is it -- do you know what it's zoned or what -- what is next to the other side? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe it's Estates there. It's Estates zoning there, yeah. So that's an agricultural, obviously, designation, but they're homes that are on those larger lots. So. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No complaints from that side? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there was -- I think Mr. Dixon spoke of some issues he had on the 14th or -- I don't remember the exact name of the gentleman, but I thought it was Mr. Dixon. But we're not -- first of all -- and I'm sure you'll hear this from staff, we haven't heard any complaints since the 14th. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. My impression in hearing the folks is the 14th was the problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And there have been some before and after that were not a problem at all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Primarily not a problem. But my thought is -- and there may be -- it may be beyond our jurisdiction to do anything, but I'm trying to -- and I'm talking to my fellow members up here as well. But, you know, I'd like to put some teeth into it that if it -- 9/14 -- and I know we can dispute whether anything happened, but it's something that concerns the neighbors. Like 9/14 happens, what -- is there anything we can do? And that may be more for staff or legal than for you, but I'm just trying to tell you where my thought process is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. And hopefully when Mr. Shaw goes through this process and explains how it actually occurs -- keep in mind, there's a staff person at every blast, so county is there. They are observing every blast that we do, and they're on the property lines. They're not next to the blast. And staff can explain that to you better than I can. It's not an unmonitored blast that occurs. So hopefully -- hopefully the adjustments we've made here codifies how the operations are occurring. So hopefully that will mean there's no longer a September -- September 14th event, but know that staff's there to observe to make sure we're not violating the regulations applicable to this mine. Other than that, I don't know much more we could do. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 10 of 102 COMMISISONER VERNON: Well, I just wanted you to know where -- my thought process -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- as your team stands up and starts talking, that's where my head is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may also say -- try to -- excuse me. In a conversation I had in some detail with Ms. Cook on Tuesday, we got into the specifics about how the monitoring and regulation works. And I expect she would be offering testimony when staff's time comes. I expect she would be in a position to do that. And if not, we'd certainly ask her to, because there's a lot more behind this that can be said. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Any other -- any other questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just probably -- I'm probably jumping the gun, but for me it's simple. You have a conditional use, and you're coming in to reduce the spacing -- or increase the blast area so there's less spacing with the surrounding property lines. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just want to make sure we all understand that. We're not -- we're increasing the blast area -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- which is going to take, supposedly, a problem that we hear a lot about. And what I'm looking for is to hear how increasing will not make it worse for the residents. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why Mr. Shaw's here. He can explain the technical aspects of how the blasting occurs and how the regulations work. And I think he's the person that's going to be the most important for you to hear about on that topic. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Rich? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Let me get his concerned, just so you know, about regulations. It's more about actual impact. MR. YOVANOVICH: And he will -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Regulations don't protect the neighbors. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's going to get into the details of what the .2 feet per second means. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It looks like these are changes from what's in the package -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- and what Derek reviewed, so he's not seen these or reviewed these. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, but they're reductions from what's already approved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. And then the conditions you're offering that has the limitations on blasting, you're offering it notwithstanding the Florida Statutes on blasting? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct? Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And they're more restrictive, I believe, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: They are. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, okay. And before you stand down, Mr. Yovanovich, maybe if you don't mind, I'll take up the question I asked you yesterday on the telephone: Is there a chance that as your client ceases blasting in a particular area, it would be willing to relinquish its authority to use that property for blasting? And I'm given to understand that when it gets down too deep it's not -- it's not economically feasible to continue blasting. And it would be nice if we could, through a surrender 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 11 of 102 process of some kind, come up with zeroing out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you have a chance to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And I've talked to my client, and that's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is fine? All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's acceptable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you going to offer some language on that? At the proper time? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. I don't have any language to that, but I think we're going to have to do that during a break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: To put a little more skin on the bones, thinking about it further, and also some of the comments you made, it seems to me that as of -- as of right now, we could exclude that property, and then if we could get a covenant from you that as your client, in good faith, ceases the need to blast in an area, that that would come out without waiting for the next public hearing of some sort. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: One more thing. Would you mind going back to the photo? Right there. Right there. Okay. It looks like -- you see the lighter green areas, are those former blast areas, or is that former agriculture? What is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I want to make sure -- are you talking about over here, Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, in the -- if it's north, the northwest, northeast, and southwest. MR. YOVANOVICH: You talking about right here? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I'm talking about the big light color -- yes, that one. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's ag operations. COMMISISONER VERNON: Those are ag? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Let me get back to where I was and let Mr. Arnold take back over. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr. Chair and Planning Commissioners. I'm Wayne Arnold, a certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates. And I've got a few slides. I just wanted to maybe lay the groundwork of why we're here. So this conditional use was previously approved and, as you know, there's typically a site plan that's approved as part of the conditional use, and in this case there was also a separate blast exhibit that was approved when the blast was -- blasting was added to the conditional use some years ago. So what our mission was, to come in and try to modify the blasting exhibit because, you know, this is the only operating aggregate mine in Collier County, which is important, because the aggregate that comes out of here, the limestone aggregate is used for many things. From the aerial photograph, you can see that there's already some lake areas. Those were shallow scrapings of fill dirt that came off this before the blasting area was approved. So those areas were mined for fill dirt, but there's also hard lime rock deposits on this site, which is why the blasting is necessary to break up the aggregate so it can be taken out of the soil. It's broken up into various sizes. It's used for roadbed material, it's used for making asphalt, it's used for making concrete, and there's some residual fill that's allowed as well. But it's really important because there are not that many hard rock deposits. Rich and I 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 12 of 102 worked on an earth mine proposal many years ago that had been withdrawn, and it was the Hussey property, which the county now owns. But that's another vein of hard rock deposits that runs through the county, and that was an important resource. So it is a resource that's recognized through the state as an important resource, and it's important to Collier County. It's important to our region. And the nearest other mine that has aggregate coming out of it, I think it's in Bonita, and that mine is in its process of closing down. So this is a necessary part of what we do for a living, and that is we continue to build roads and infrastructure. So that's why it's very important. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Arnold, in your experience, is the life cycle of sites like this, the natural resources are removed, the site is restored, and then rezoned to a different probably less noisy use; is that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- what we can expect? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. And in this particular case, you-all saw plan amendments a couple years ago which allowed for there to be a rural village in this location, or it can be zoned under the current process for homes. But the intent here is that there would be homes around this lake in some configuration in the future. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's not something, just because of a scarcity of resources, that's going to go on forever, is it? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. And in this particular case, the blast area was designated as the blasting area, which is on the visualizer, the crosshatched area was the no-blast zone. So the no-blast zone was set up to be about 3 -- 2600 feet or so. And in talking to the mine operators, they've been out there digging and blasting. They've realized that the depth of the rock really is in a different configuration than just the rectangle that's been drawn there. So there's an opportunity to go back in and get more of this resource that's vitally important to their community, and we enlisted Jeff Straw, who is one expert in seismology, to look at this and find out if we kept the same blasting protocol that's in place today, the same amount of the -- the same vibration allowances, the same explosive allowances, and things of that nature, would we have an impact if we grew the blast area. And Jeff did the analysis, and he's going to talk about that analysis that we submitted as part of the application. And his conclusion was, if we kept all the blasting protocol as is, the 1300-foot line that we've requested would not cause any impact to the adjoining homes. And as Rich mentioned, we had three seismograph locations. We'll show you an exhibit later that shows where a fourth one is being added at a resident's request so they can monitor a little bit farther away. And Jeff will get into this in a few minutes, but -- so those of us who don't deal with earth mining and blasting rock every day, there are vibrations that go through the rock, and a lot of the vibration depends on how dense the rock is or how -- the lack of density in the rock and how that gets dissipated through the rock. So you'll hear a little bit about that in a minute. So just to set the premise of why we're here. We were amending the blast exhibit and not wanting to amend those conditions, but as Rich just showed you on the visualizer, we're willing to reduce the blast load and the number of holes that they can blast per month because we think that that addresses the protocol that was addressed in the field by the mine operator back after the September event. So this is on an aerial photograph that shows you the blast area. You can clearly see the phases of the lake. The current blasting operation is occurring to the -- sort of the southeast portion of the lake. And one of the conditions previously approved is that they had to mine east to west. So you're taking it farther away from the Estates residences that are to our east and to our south. So the blasting protocol is to blast from east to west and south to north, if you will. And you can see there are two phases here. The first phase is largely the lake that was previously 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 13 of 102 started as fill dirt operation, and then the Phase 2 is to the north. So we still maintain a lot of areas in this proposal that are no blast. It's at least 1300 feet. In some cases you can see it grows considerably more, but that's based on where the lake area currently is and allowance for future homes as well. This is the blast zone comparison. So the yellow identifies the expanded blast zone. And what I didn't point out is, so the limits of the mining operation today are the purple line that surrounds this. So everything within that purple area can be dug today, and whether they go in there and just use, you know, mechanical equipment to take the topsoil down to the hard rock -- and then there's still a pecking process where I'm sure, Mr. Schmidt, you've been around construction enough to have known that. But they can come in with mechanical equipment and peck the rock. It's not as efficient as blasting, which is why the blasting is the more efficient way to get at that hard material. But it wouldn't preclude us from going in and using another mechanical process to get at the -- if the blasting expansion is not approved. It just makes it that much more difficult and a lengthier process. Some photos. The mine has been operating, as we've said, in some capacity for around 20 years out there. There is an existing perimeter berm and buffer that was required along the east and south parts of the property. There are canals that separate this property from Golden Gate Estates. One is a 60-foot-wide canal to the east and an 80-foot-wide canal to the south, and there's a 20-foot-high berm that has been planted, and it looks like it has some exotic vegetation in it at this point, but there is a berm that is there. There's a separate condition that was mentioned, I think, by Mr. Sparrazza to Rich about there -- there's also a condition that talks about the equipment also having attenuation on the motors to reduce noise of the mechanical equipment that's out there. Then there's also a condition that says if that's unsuccessful -- unsuccessful in attenuating the noise, that they would have to build a berm around that equipment. And so you've got a perimeter berm, and then you also have the requirements to attenuate the equipment where they're actually operating the equipment, and then there's also a requirement, if determined that that's not sufficient, that they have to then build a berm around the equipment that's operating to help attenuate the noise. So there are many safeguards in place. And one of the things that I would mention -- and I'll go back to it on Rich's slide that he concluded with. And it's not highlighted because this was already in your packet. But Condition No. 30, which is on the upper right-hand side of that page, after our neighborhood information meeting, we had several neighbors that said, you know, but we're not aware of when the blasting occurs. And what we did after that, we established a condition that said that we would -- within a mile radius, we would notify all property owners and ask them if they wanted to be included in blast notification, and then we would obtain their phone number, e-mail address, whatever means that they want us to contact them, and we would notify them in advance of any blast activity so at least there's no surprise. They would know in advance when a blast is going to occur on site. And, again, those blasts are limited to eight days per month. So it's not an extensive amount of blasting, but at least we would notify them, and they would have an opportunity to at least be aware of that. But I thought I would highlight that because that was one thing that came out of the neighborhood information meeting that we thought would be at least helpful for notification purposes. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jeff Straw, who's a seismic expert and has dealt with mining all over the East Coast of Florida. He's a renowned expert in the field, and I think some of the education will be helpful for all of us as we make the decision to expand the blasting area. MR. STRAW: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, good morning. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Straw. I'm vice president and area manager of GeoSonics. We are vibration acoustic consultants, seismologists. For the last 45 years I've worked in 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 14 of 102 the industry, for the last 43 of those here in Southwest and Southeast Florida handling the state of Florida. We measure ground vibration from blasting, pile driving, all kinds of manmade vibration in structures, outside of structures, what effects on structures there are, and we have been associated with this project since its beginning. Just as some general overview, I think it's important to know that mining occurs where the resource exists, not where it's convenient. You can't go out in Florida and just start digging a hole and expect to find rock. That does not happen with the geologic strata, as Wayne talked about. It's in this area. That's why the mining was starting here in the first place. Material also has to be of a quality to create finished aggregate. That's where it's crushed, processed, washed, and then it can be sent in specific sizes so they can use it. Concrete asphalt, you know, concrete block, they all use different sizes of material. And here, due to the depth and hardness of the rock, we use commercial explosives to actually break the rock for excavation. So that process is handled through a drilling contractor, also through a licensed Florida blaster. And, honestly, the original monitoring of the work in The Quarry we started in August/September of 2006. There was some work ahead of time. There were some evaluations done at the beginning that we did back in the time, and we have maintained as what we call the independent seismologist monitoring through this period. So we know very well what's going on. I know that you-all have raised some issues about oversight and regulation, and just so that you know, Collier County established originally 42 conditions. Some of those have been satisfied, so they've been pared down to where we are today. But the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, DEP, has a permit. They follow up on this. Also, the State of Florida, it's the Department of Financial Services now, but it's the Division of State Fire Marshal. They have what is called construction materials mining activity, and there is a separate permit that is handled through the state, through the state fire marshal's office that is then monitored by the state on a regular basis. There's a number of other things that are out there: DOJ; Bureau of Tobacco; Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives, ATF&E; and then we have state and federal DOT requirements. There is no material stored on site. Everything is prepared. The site's prepared, the explosives contractor brings in what he needs for the day, loads what he needs to do, and at the end of the day, that goes back to a licensed magazine that's controlled by the state. Since the rock hardness exceeds mechanical excavator's ability to break the rock -- I mean, the rock is not one solid piece of steel or anything like that. It has cracks. It has voids. But it is hard enough that at the depth that they are, they cannot use mechanical excavators. Now, you can use the rock breakers that were talked about earlier, but those start at 7 o'clock in the morning, they go till 7 or 8 at night, and they go nonstop all day long. They still produce vibration, and they do produce a lot of noise. So the use of commercial explosives is done for the efficiency so that that can be done. And you can see there's a picture of the -- a drill. That is here. This is a special Florida drill. It drills one single hole, one pass. They drill, then they put a cardboard tube into the existing hole, and then it's developed in a pattern. Now, there's a scientific approach to all of this. This is not done just by the seat of the pants. There's a blasting plan that is developed, the site locations are identified for all blasts, then the drilling's completed, as I said, by the specialty drills, and then you have professional licensed explosives contractors that load and detonate all the holes. The material is a semiliquid paste, if you will. You know, it's a slurry. We call it an emulsion in some cases. That is pumped into the hole. There's a booster and a timing device, which is known as a blasting cap. In many of these we use nonelectric or electronic blasting caps to help individually delay the holes so that that pattern that I showed before that's down here in the corner, those holes detonate individually. They detonate thousandths of a second apart. So for the blaster, that works to help fragment the rock better, honestly, than one big blast. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 15 of 102 And for us as vibration consultants, that helps reduce the ground vibration. And as was stated earlier, the September 14th blast was where do you initiate from. So in that pattern you take a point. On that day it was initiated farthest away, driving vibration towards some of the neighbors. That has been turned around, and that has been a management decision that's been made by the blaster to, you know, reduce offsite vibration and control that. Currently, the blasting hours are allowed Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. by the state. In this, Collier has reduced that between the hours of 9 and 4. There are no weekends, and there are no holidays on the state calendar. And as was mentioned earlier, Collier County, from the beginning, has had an inspector on the site. Somebody from the -- I don't know whether it's Engineering or, you know, building department comes out and is there for each site. They're contacted ahead of time. They are there to be able to watch the loading and the detonation, and then they get the results. And we also are limited to eight blasts per month. That's it. And with the new reduction in number of holes, that still is -- we'll still end up being that same time. So there are only eight per month. How do we measure and figure out what's going on? Well, through the permitting, the state fire marshal's office, through the requirements of Collier County, and the two chapter -- the chapters there, 552.30 of the Florida Statutes, and Chapters 69A of the Florida Administrative Control -- Code really controls how blasting is required to be done as well as what is supplemented by your rules. One of the things is they require third-party monitoring of vibration and air over-pressure. That's what my firm does. So we specialize in having instrumentation that monitors what goes on. And you can see in the picture to the right there are four green boxes that are highlighted. Those are the current four seismographs. The one to the north at the top of the photo, the one to the right on the east side, and the one to the south are all -- were all originally required in the original special-use permits that were issued for this property. The one at the farthest south is one that has been recently added, and that is an additional condition that was mentioned. The seismographs are typically at the closest structure, and then we have -- obviously, can add additional machines as necessary to follow up to address concerns or additional measurements. And to talk a little bit about what we actually do, when the -- when the explosives are detonated, we call it a detonation. It's a very rapid burning of this commercial material in the blast hole. What happens is when it moves outward from the bore hole, it crushes about half to three-quarters of the distance to the next blast hole so that when they all go off, they are all fragmenting rock. Outside of that 15-foot or so maximum distance, there is no further rock disturbance other than, you know, in the pattern itself. So you're breaking that rock in that area, and that is all. There is nothing else that displaces the ground. What we have is vibration that goes out. And the best way to think about this is similar to dropping a rock in a quiet pond. You get a splash at the close point, and then you see the waves move outward. They reduce in height, which is what we call amplitude or intensity, as they go out. They get farther apart. They also change in what we call frequency, and those are two of the key things that we look at with the seismographs. The seismographs are in place. They're much more sensitive than we are as people. We're really good at feeling vibration, but we can't tell what the levels are. That's why the instrumentation is there. So people in their homes feel vibration as it excites the foundation, excites the rock, but we're talking about vibrations that you can't see other than, you know, the rock and the pond kind of thing; you can see those out here. They're thousands of feet apart, and you can't see them. That's why we have the instrumentation. And what we measure is what we call particle velocity. So when I talk about standards, we're talking about how fast a particle of ground shakes and moves from rest temporarily. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 16 of 102 So all of this is -- you know, if I do that on the desk, I've now created vibration that's gone through that whole desk, and then eventually it dies out. The same thing we have with ground vibration. The natural soils, the water, the rock materials that we have all attenuate the ground vibration we're dealing with. So everything is measured by a seismograph. That box that you see in the upper left part of the pictures is one of our remote seismographs. Those are automatically connected. We are the only ones that ever mess with them. Those are the ones that are put out. All of the instruments are running from daylight till sunset. We have working hours. We know that they can blast between the hours of 9 and 4; 8 to 5 with the state. Most of our stuff comes on at 7 in the morning and runs till 7 or 8 o'clock at night so that we're covered a period of time that they're there. Anything that gets triggered that causes that seismograph to trigger sends an alert, and we get information in our office. They're independently designed. They're calibrated to standard, so the International Society of Explosives Engineers which tell us, you know, how to calibrate those. They are all calibrated. There's a calibration pulse. And on the right side, you see a vibration wave form. That's this diagram here. These are the actual vibration waves in three components that we measure. This is also what we call air blasts, and I'll talk about that in a second, and then these are the calibration pulses. So every time a ground vibration occurs, the seismographs measure that, and then they report that to us. The instruments are all cellularly connected. They download immediately, and then what happens is we get those to the quarry operators and they, in turn, give those to the Collier County inspector that's there. So they have this within five to seven minutes after the blast going on. COMMISSIONER SHEA: May I ask you a question? MR. STRAW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Where does it sense this peak particle velocity; a hundred feet in the ground or right at the surface? MR. STRAW: It's at the surface. We are about -- anywhere between six to 12 inches buried. The reason being is twofold. One, ground vibration, when you get out from the site, even though the hole may be 25 foot deep, it very rapidly into [sic] the energy attenuates and moves towards the surface. So we're dealing with what we call surface waves so that they are moving across the ground. The other thing is, that's where we build our houses. So we are building on the surface of the ground. So we are measuring at that structure and getting the vibration energy that's coming to that structure. And so that's where we are measuring those surface waves. There's multiple years of study. I've been doing this, you know, almost 46 years, and I know that there's about another 45 years of study that has been ongoing before I even started in this kind of thing. So we know very, very well what the energy does and how it gets there. And so that's why the seismographs are there. We look at them in different directions to evaluate each one. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you would consider that the worst-case scenario for the vibration being right at the slab level for the houses? MR. STRAW: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. STRAW: I mean, that's what we're -- understand what our ultimate goal is. Our ultimate goal here is to make sure that at that structure we are not creating vibration that would cause even the most minor cosmetic damage. We're talking about peeling the paint, extensions of existing cracks in drywall or plaster, formation of new cracks at the corners of building materials. Those are the most fragile building materials. Plaster on lathe and drywall are the two most fragile materials that exist, and we have standards for those, and that's what we're using. And then the standards that have been developed are designed to protect those from occurring. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 17 of 102 So we're looking at all that. That's why we're measuring where we are. And there's a whole protocol, too, from the International Society of Explosive Engineers. You know, we're members to that. We've helped develop some of these standards. I've been on those committees to develop those standards to make sure that we are generating and everybody is measuring the same way. So there's a whole seismograph operator setup that we have for those two. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. MR. STRAW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Jeff, just so you're aware, I'm an army engineer, so I've been trained in explosives. Trained to build things, but also to destroy things. MR. STRAW: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so I've had a lot of experience with explosives. But I want to talk about the calibration. And you hit on a couple of things. These are all integrated systems? It's all four tied together? MR. STRAW: You mean the channels? Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it's sending you information realtime? MR. STRAW: Well, as soon as it triggers. The instrument -- the instruments are designed to set and run, and we have what we call a trigger level. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. STRAW: Normally it's about what we would have walking across the floor so that the machine is -- it comes in in the morning. It calibrates itself. It sends us a signal that tells us, hey, the seismograph at the north side of the 846 mine, you know, is operating fine. We look at those every morning. We get that trigger, then, by some event. And we get people cutting grass or, you know, driving vehicles near them that will set them off, and then we get that and then we -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you're validating every day -- MR. STRAW: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that these are operational? MR. STRAW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Calibration is done by your firm? MR. STRAW: Calibration is done by our firm. We are a manufacturer of these instruments as well as a user, and so that's where the Society of Explosive Engineers standards come in. They are for all of the instrument manufacturers. And to be honest, there's maybe a half dozen in the world that make seismographs. And so those standards, we have a shop that manufacturers them actually in St. Pete for our firm, and they go to our Warrendale, Pennsylvania, office where they undergo final testing and calibration and is validated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does the state come out and validate the calibration, or you're providing that information to the state? MR. STRAW: We provide that information to the state. There's an annual -- a minimum annual inspection that's done by the state for each mine in the state under this, and they look at the calibration certificates as well as all of the records that are there to identify everything has been done to the state standard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the efficacy of the data, you're validating prior -- well, let me rephrase the question. On a blast day, you're first validating that all the systems are operational? MR. STRAW: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If one is not operational, you call off the blast? MR. STRAW: We don't call off the blast. What I do is -- what -- actually, Katie Mayer with my office who's here is my assistant manager. She sends somebody from our Davie, Florida, office over here to monitor. We tell the blaster you've got to wait till we get here. We'll set up an instrument. We have portable instruments as well. We set those up in the same manner, repair 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 18 of 102 the one while it's there, and let them go ahead and blast. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I guess, in summation, the data I'm getting, it's calibrated, it's validated, and you're assuring the mine operator that what you're gathering is valid and, I guess, within protocol standards, acceptable if you were challenged? MR. STRAW: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. STRAW: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are these the same systems, like if you were -- if I were -- because I know we have some of that in Collier County where we may have some surface blasting to check for -- when geologists are checking for oil or gas or those type of things. Are these the same kind of systems? MR. STRAW: They're similar, but they're looking for different things. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, because they're checking vibration and going down. MR. STRAW: They're looking for what we call the body waves. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. STRAW: They're looking for the -- they're using a seismograph that has a single channel sensor. Ours have three plus the sound. So we have four channels on that diagram. We have the surface. They are looking for attenuation over a distance, and then they are also looking at what happens with the body waves, the waves that move in the rock. Because what they do is -- they're not there to break it. They're there to shake it. And so they put what we use to start a blast, a cast booster, down in a drilled hole, and then they detonate it, and all their seismographs measure so they can look for anomalies in the geologic structure. And so it's a little different in that sense. But, technically, if they are near homes when they're doing this, they should be using one of ours as well, because they still shake. Sometimes they're worse. I mean, I have done some of this work where, you know, we have done these things either with the trucks that shake, so you're familiar with the vibroseis trucks as well as the explosives, and we monitor the surface vibrations because they can be worse than what the blasting is, typically. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In summation, I guess, and just for the public in simple terms, you're validating this every day. Somebody could not -- could somebody go out there and compromise this, and if they did compromise one of these machines, you would know? MR. STRAW: Exactly. Because the machines call in. They call in regularly, and we get -- it's what we call a heartbeat. We get a heartbeat from them, and then we can go back. And if one doesn't respond when it's supposed to, we get an alert in an e-mail, you know, a text message, and it tells us. So, yes, we verify everything is going on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So after the blast, then you get the report? MR. STRAW: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you report back to the operator saying you're well within parameters? MR. STRAW: Correct. We let them know what their numbers are, and that's what they relay to your inspector with the county. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because a follow-on blast, then, they may not put as many holes in if you're -- MR. STRAW: They will make an adjustment -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Adjustment. MR. STRAW: -- like they did, from what I understand, with the September 14th. I didn't hear all the testimony, but, you know, we looked at the records. You know, they will make an adjustment in the timing. They make an adjustment in the direction of what we call direction of initiation, if you will, and they can change the load. There's a number of parameters that we look at, and that's what we've looked at in our 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 19 of 102 report that we gave to Wayne and to the owner when we looked at this. Can we come closer and still do this? And the answer is, yes, you make those adjustments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One last question on the explosives. So this is not det cord where it all goes off at once? You said it's synchronized? MR. STRAW: This is -- this is all using -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Electronic -- MR. STRAW: -- electronic or nonelectronic delay detonators, that nothing goes off with det cord anymore. You don't use dynamite. You don't use det cord. We use a detonator with a blasting cap. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very familiar. MR. STRAW: Still look the same. It goes into a one, sometimes less, pound cast booster. It looks like a small Campbell's soup can. That goes to the bottom of the hole. They load a commercial emulsion in. In this case, it's a pumped semiliquid material, almost like a paste, a runny paste, if you will, and that's considered a blasting agent, an oxidizer. None of this is high explosives except for the blasting cap and the booster. And when those are detonated, they're consumed, and the bulk of the explosives is used. What we want it to do is detonate and produce gas. We want it to produce the gas to go in and fragment the rock. There's existing cracks, and that's what we're trying to expand and widen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You have two engineers on the Board, so we're getting more technical than we need to. But on the calibration side, so you calibrate it in the factory. So if it goes out of calibration in the field, how do you know? How do you re- -- how do you check it in the field? MR. STRAW: There's an automatic -- when that -- when that instrument -- the remote instruments, like you see in the box, when they call in, the first thing they do is wake up, check their time, date, make sure everything corresponds with our server system, and then it runs a cal check. And if we get a bad cal, we get a -- we get a notice. And at that point then we say, guys, you know, if you're going to shoot that day, you can't shoot, or you've got to wait till we get over here and do it and replace it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When you say a cal check, you mean it sends out a standard velocity particle and they see that -- MR. STRAW: No. The machine actually moves the sensors. They're -- the geophone is a circular object that has electronic sensors in there. And what happens is the machine actually makes those sensors move. It's not just a computer signal that says things work. This -- the instrument actually makes the three sensors move. They're on a line between us and the blast at right angles and vertically. So you have a three-dimensional, you know, ability to measure, and it actually moves those sensors. If they don't move -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just want to make sure you're confident that you are recalibrating in the field, that that's not an issue that all of a sudden the instrument be wrong. You're saying you check the calibration on it routinely? MR. STRAW: That's -- it's done -- with the remote system, it's done every day, and then if there's something that comes back, we jump into it, you know, and change them out. That's -- also under the state rule, there's a requirement that if a machine is considered to be nonfunctional or has some issue with it, it has to be replaced, you know, prior to any other use. So that's something that we have to follow with. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. To understand correctly, you're testing it every day even though the requirements or the standards here are you're going to be blasting eight days only. So if you're going to blast next Tuesday, you might still be testing today and tomorrow. Should you find a fault, you do have time 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 20 of 102 to get there, rectify it before Tuesday's blast? MR. STRAW: Correct. That's -- that would be ideal. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. STRAW: And so, you know, we'd love to have two or three days' notice. Normally we get -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Forty-five minutes. MR. STRAW: Yeah, and then we've got to make a phone call and say, guess what guys, you've got to hold your shot while we get over here. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: But that's more assurance that the system is operating correctly and to specification, because you're not just doing it on the eight days of the month. MR. STRAW: Right. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: You're doing it to every day. MR. STRAW: We're doing it every day. Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, it doesn't make any difference. The machine doesn't know any different between holidays, Saturday, Sunday. So, you know, when it turns on in the morning, it checks. When it shuts off at the end of the day, it also runs a cal check so that we have the ability to get those if there's an issue. So, you know, the machine is constantly checking itself because honestly, Commissioners, you're not asking questions we've not heard before, and, this is, you know, extremely important for us to have this kind of an evaluation. So, yes, the instruments are checked, they're evaluated, and then removed if they're not working. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A question again. Are these -- I assume what you stated previously, but these are sensitive enough -- I'm asking -- to even detect when the drill machine is drilling? You're going to get vibration through drilling. Are they -- MR. STRAW: Not at the -- not at the offsite loca- -- I know what you're asking. Not at the offsite location. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not at the offsite. MR. STRAW: The distance is far enough away that outside the drill probably within 100 to 150 feet, you don't get anything. You know, where we are even at the proposed closest location, they're not going to, you know, feel the drill. They may hear the drill -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. STRAW: -- you know, as it's drilling, but it's not something that's going to be perceived. But, yes, I mean, people walk across the floor, and these seismographs trigger. They're extremely sensitive instruments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. STRAW: And so -- I know we've gone on, but I wanted to cover a couple more things just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let me -- MR. STRAW: -- on the standards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Since we've interrupted you, let us continue to do so, with apologies. And I'm going to call on Commissioner Schumacher -- Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I apologize for interrupting. MR. STRAW: No, it's okay. No, no. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Do those monitors measure the air blast as well? MR. STRAW: Yes, and that's my next-to-last slide so -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I won't interrupt any more till the end. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to -- maybe you're about to talk about this. You made a reference a moment ago to sound. MR. STRAW: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And are you going to say some more about the decibel 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 21 of 102 measurements; that's part of your purview? MR. STRAW: I will, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's all I need to know. Please proceed. MR. STRAW: All right. So we talk about vibration, and we do have standards. Now, the standards have been designed to prevent any defects in a structure. I know people see thing. They will call about it. We will evaluate it. There is a program through the state for the state. For anybody that has a concern, they can go through the state. The state fire marshal looks at it. But there are some defined limits. I talked about them before, and these are in terms of what we call peak particle velocity. And we have .5 inch per second. That's the standard for plaster on lathe. And if you're familiar with that, that's the old farmhouses up north, you know, central parts of the state where, you know, they've got wood lathe, they put coats of plaster on them. It's real thick. That's the most fragile building material in the world. We have modern drywall, .75 inch per second. So it tolerates more. And then you look at things like stucco, reinforced concrete block joints. It takes 3 inches per second before you can create a crack in that material. Reinforced concrete, driveways, floor slabs, you know, other types of construction. I mean, we, years ago, blasted next to the Sawgrass Expressway, so you have all of those concrete piers for bridges and things like that. That's all reinforced concrete. It takes over 10 inches per second to do that. And what we're using as a limit is the .2 inch per second, so we're below all of those standards, so there's a huge margin of safety between what it takes to cause damage and what you're using as a limit here for this project. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You're doing an average. Do you have any limit on what the peak can be? I mean, if you blast eight times, one of them could have been over 10, and the average could still be .2. MR. STRAW: At that point, then, they have violated the state standards, and then the state comes in and handles that. Because the state has what we call the U.S. Bureau Mines Criteria, and it's a stair step that we look at vibration and frequency. We look at two things together. But it starts -- the lowest level it has is the .5 and .75 when we're dealing with surface waves and low frequency where you'd get the most response of structures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So those numbers aren't average? They're -- MR. STRAW: These aren't average. Those are absolutes. You know, yours is an average -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Gotcha. MR. STRAW: -- and, you know, to take care of that and look at that. But we do have the state standards on top of that. So not only are we looking at what your standard is -- and that goes in a report to the owner monthly as well as what they get every day, but then we also look at what the state criteria is. And the last one is to talk a little bit about air over-pressure. This is the noise that we hear. Now, this is -- we don't measure it the way we do community annoyance. We still use decibels, but we use a little bit of a different scale. We're looking at structure response, so we do what we call a flat or linear response, because the house -- you know, it doesn't have our ability to hear. We have a bell-shape curve that we hear from, like, 20 to 20,000 hertz. We hear best about 8- to 9,000 hertz or cycles per second. This, the structure doesn't care about that. We hear what we have. And so it's created when the gas that's produced vents at the surface, and so we get a vibration -- it looks like a vibration trace, but it's actually an air trace that we look at. It's similar to distant thunder. The state limit is 133, and what you have is 120 as a limit. So we are looking at all of the aspects that occur with side effects of the use of commercial explosive. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that at the property line? MR. STRAW: That is at the property line, but, you know, it would also apply to any other 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 22 of 102 house we're monitoring at. Yes, the closest locations we measure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one else is signaling at this point. Do you have more presentation, sir? MR. STRAW: I am done, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Commissioner Vernon. MR. STRAW: But if there are questions, I'll certainly answer. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I'm not an engineer, so I have no formal training in blasting. Although, you know, I have plenty of experience with M-80s and bottle rockets and Roman candles as a kid, so -- I'm not sure that qualifies me. But the synchronization, it's like -- just like this (indicating), right? MR. STRAW: Yeah. If you imagine the rock in the pond -- I use just the rock in the pond as, you know, one big rock going in. But if you imagine what we actually do is break that up into -- say there's 30 holes in a blast pattern, we break that up into 30 little pieces, and you throw one in right after another. You get a little bit of a splash, but what happens is you don't get that big splash. And they're timed and separated enough that they actually help offset the vibrations. It's a -- this -- you thought we were in the weeds before. This really gets into the weeds in terms of timing. But we actually do timing from single holes. And we look at that and then provide recommendations to the blaster on their timing between holes. It helps to offset the vibration going off property. So, yes, that's what's happening. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So if you -- say, you had 20 blast holes and you blast one, you wait five minutes, blast another, wait five minutes, it would be more vibration? MR. STRAW: Yes, because you'd have the single hole all in itself, and we'd only get through eight because we're only allowed to blast eight times per month. So each one of those would be considered its individual -- an individual blast, plus we wouldn't break the rock very much. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It would be less effective? MR. STRAW: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. STRAW: The amount of explosives that goes in the hole is designed to actually fragment that rock in that area around each blast hole, and if it's less, you create more vibration. If they put too much in, it creates more vibration. So they're trying to get this at the -- what we call the appropriate powered factor or relationship of explosives to the rock material to actually fragment the rock, and, of course, it depends on what we have. Here we have, you know, limestone and -- you know, fragmented limestone and water, so that's what you're looking at. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And then did you look at any of the records regarding the 9/14/22 incident? MR. STRAW: I did. COMMISSIONER VERNON: What did you see that was -- what did you see that was different? MR. STRAW: Not very much. There's a difference in the levels. I know the 9/14 -- I don't remember the 22nd off the top of my head. The 9/14 had .16 as its highest -- highest reading. That was probably on -- and as I recall, that was on the vertical channel. So if we go back to this record, that would be this channel here. This is not that same record, but -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. MR. STRAW: -- here looking at it, the vertical channel causes motion that people feel. We also generate some technical waves we call Rayleigh waves that are surface waves that cause some repetitious vibration in the house. They're always there because of the distance that we're dealing with. But that's the difference. And by orienting the blast the next day, you help reduce those from occurring. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So I don't know how to ask the question, but what anomalies did you see, other than what you've already said, on September 14th? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 23 of 102 CHAIRMAN FRYER: I need to interrupt if I may, and I -- Mr. Yovanovich is about to do so anyway, but these -- this is not to open the door to this line of questioning. Where do you stand on that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I want you-all to be totally comfortable that how we're operating is not causing damage. And if Mr. Vernon wants to ask questions about the specifics of that day -- I know your staff has the records, but, you know, Jeff's the guy to answer Mr. Vernon's questions, and I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: While Rich is at the mic, may I ask him a question? MR. YOVANOVICH: Ask me a question or -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, you. Notwithstanding the Florida Statutes preemption on blasting for Collier County, your client is agreeing to the conditions that you've placed on the visualizer for enforcement and regulation by the county notwithstanding the statutes? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. Based on the conditions that they've offered. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And then in your opinion, County Attorney, the preemption doesn't apply in this particular case because it's waivable? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the county, if it comes to it, will try to enforce the conditions whether or not they can ultimately be overrided even though this is conditions that are offered by the owner. You know, I can't really answer how that would play, but that would make the enforcement more enforceable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Mr. Straw? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I just -- go ahead. I just want to get your insights on whatever you can tell us about 9/14 distinguished from the other blasts. MR. STRAW: The young lady here said she could pull those up, and I can look at them and maybe highlight that if -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: While this is being prepared, I just want to alert everyone that we're coming up to a midmorning break at 10:30. Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: And just for your awareness, staff does have a short 25-second video of a blast going off from a pretty close location that -- at some point in time, if you'd like to see it, just request it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like we would. Thank you. MR. STRAW: I think, you know, briefly, in terms of, you know, what I'm seeing, this is, as I'm told, the 9/14 blast. So you can see the date up here, the location. And then what we have is the actual wave form. I think one of the things I noticed here is this is some of the Rayleigh waves that I talked about, the surface wave. It's well below what the standards are. And the standard here over in the corner, the maximum on the vertical channel, is .16. The frequency's 33 hertz. If you're looking at it, that's where -- this area in here is where the peak is, right here. But there's this low frequency that -- information that comes in that at the end of the wave, you still get some response of a structure. The other thing I'm noticing here is there's some air over-pressure or air blasts, as we just talked about. So not only do you feel this, the house would then respond to this. So that may be part of what we're looking at. Now, if you look at the standards, this is a plot of the vibration versus the U.S. Bureau of Mines and what the State of Florida has. Your criteria is .2, and there would be a line straight across here averaged. The state allows this curve depending on the change in vibration frequency. So it permits out here where this one was .16 at 31.3, so it's out in here. It produces -- allows a lot more vibration, still not causing damage to structure, but this is what the perception is from there, and that's January 3rd. These are some of the other vibration waves you 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 24 of 102 have. This is -- this is a different one. This is -- we just looked at it before. This one just happened to be up here. It's January 16th. You can see that in the vertical trace here there's a little bit of the Rayleigh wave. It's not as much. There's not as much air over-pressure. The blast was probably oriented in a different direction to that. So those are some of the things that we look at that we see. That would be consistent with what happened between the 16th and the 24th. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And the higher numbers on the 9/14, would you attribute that to anything other than the direction of the blast? And if so, what? MR. STRAW: I don't think -- I don't think there's any real change, because it depends on which seismograph is closest that you're looking at. You know, it's the closest seismograph -- or we have three and then the fourth now. So looking at -- looking at that seismograph there, the orientation of the blast would drive vibration so that if you're looking at the original one, you're driving vibration towards this location. So by orienting the initiation away from structures, we reduce the vibration. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. And you may have answered the question; I just didn't understand it. But the numbers were higher on September 14th? MR. STRAW: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Based on your 40-years -- plus-years of experience, why were the numbers higher? MR. STRAW: More orientation. Because they're loading the same amount of product. As I recall -- and I don't have everything in front of me. But looking at it, the load is the same, you know, the pattern is the same, the depth is the same. It's more the orientation, and that's what got changed for the subsequent blasts, and they're paying more attention to that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Anything else? You said more the orientation, which I understand. But anything else you could attribute that to? MR. STRAW: The only thing that I see that's different is this part of the air blast with, you know, other blasts that were on the computer here that I'm looking at. There's a little bit here, but this is reduced. And you can see this, how much lower the air over-pressure is. The air over-pressure is something that causes house rattling as well. So I think those two things, the confinement of the shot on subsequent blasts appears to be better. Meaning that when the blast detonates, understand the hole -- the holes individually detonate. They create gas. Eventually they vent at the surface. When that gas comes out, there's stemming material that's on top of it. It's either water or it's crushed rock that's added to the blast hole. It just holds the explosives in place longer. And what happened on the other blast was there was more venting of that. And I think the blaster's just taking more precaution to make sure that the stemming is better applied, if you will. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I know you're answering my question, but the over-air numbers were higher, right? MR. STRAW: I believe so. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's what you mentioned. Because I said other than the orientation, what more did you see. MR. STRAW: Just the air over-pressure was higher. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. And air over-pressure, based on your 40-plus years of experience, was based on -- caused by what? MR. STRAW: That's the venting of the gases and whether they changed stemming materials or whether they've added more stemming. I haven't looked into all of that, because we've got -- the question came more about ground vibration than it came with people talking about the sound. But you asked the "over" question, you know, what do I see? What do I see here is the air blast is higher on the initial blast that we're talking about. On the September 14th blast, the air over-pressure's 115.9. On some of the other ones, it's less than that; 109. That's a significant 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 25 of 102 reduction. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And based on your experience, you think that was due to more stemming? MR. STRAW: More stemming in the blast or that the blast orientation deflected that energy away. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So it could have been simply due to the orientation? MR. STRAW: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Or it could have been due to extra stemming. What is stemming? MR. STRAW: Stemming is just crushed rock or in this case they also use water in the hole. You don't fill the hole to the surface. I should -- so that you understand, we have a cardboard tube in the hole that holds -- keeps sand and other debris out while they've drilled the pattern. When you load that, it displaces the water in the tube. But we only come up to a certain height, and then the top part of the column is unloaded. And in many cases they put crushed rock in there and/or we just use water, which the stemming -- it allows that -- the weight on it allows the explosives material to go sideways rather than straight back up the hole. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And then I think you mentioned that they had made some adjustments after that on the -- MR. STRAW: Well, I know that they had done the orientation. This may be as simple as orientation. I have not gone through everything to look at every parameter to see what did they do with stemming and the other things, because when we got the question, it was ground vibration. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And what could they do with stemming? MR. STRAW: Add more or make sure that it's, you know, compacted. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza, do you have -- is it short? Because we're -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It is, yeah, very short. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: The air over-pressure for normal ones, it looks as if you're in the 109 dB area? MR. STRAW: They're certainly lower. I mean, they can be anywhere, I mean, depending on where you are around the property, and it also depends on the wind conditions. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. MR. STRAW: So -- but they're less. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And the maximum was 120. MR. STRAW: One hundred twenty is what's allowed, correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And on the 14th, it was 115. So 115 is actually 6 dB above 109, which makes it one-fourth the level of audio. MR. STRAW: No. It's actually higher than that because these are exponential numbers. When we look at decibels, 1 to 10 is the same as 10 to 100. So when you start calculating this, we calculate it by pounds per square inch so that the change from 109 to 115, 116, whatever that number, you know, is is significantly greater. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. STRAW: It's probably, like, three times the energy, if not four times the energy. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah, four times the energy. MR. STRAW: From one blast to the other. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Allowed, correct. MR. STRAW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. So you're -- although the maximum is 120 dB, you're usually, as in this case, 109 or lower? MR. STRAW: Correct. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 26 of 102 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Commissioner Vernon has promised me this is going to be short. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Two minutes. So you said something about wind. Does wind have something to do with this? MR. STRAW: Wind will affect noise, sure. I mean, this is still -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: But not the vibration? MR. STRAW: No, wind doesn't have anything to do with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's 27 minutes after 10. We'll take a 13-minute recess until 10:40. (A brief recess was had from 10:27 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) (Commissioner Schumacher is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Let's reconvene, ladies and gentlemen. And let's -- and I know the vice chairman wants to ask another question. Do you want to do that now, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I wanted to ask about the strikethroughs on the conditions, but I'll wait -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- till a time to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's probably going to be that time if someone helps me get back onto wherever the presentation is. Which one do I click? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I have two questions, and let's -- if you got the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I got them. I've got the conditions up for you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the -- not your conditions. These are the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Padron? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- conditions that were part of the staff report. And I'll tell you which page if you want to do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me get the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want the previous or the current -- the proposed? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Close this and start it again. It was -- stand by, Rich. This is on the packet -- it was part of the -- it's two issues that I wanted to address, and it's -- I'm just trying to find -- it was part of the conditions, and it was the strikethrough and underlines. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're up on the screen if that helps you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This was on 29. There was one called 17, $1 per heavy truckload. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It was -- he just had it right here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. My question is: Is there a rational nexus for this $1? It seems to have always been $1. It goes back probably 20 years it was $1, and I have to question whether that is sufficient. And I would have to believe that must have come from Transportation. And is there a rational nexus? Is this sufficient? It reads to me almost like a usage tax. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not an impact tax. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is it an impact fee? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not an impact fee. It's basically a usage fee to assure that if we create issues on the road, there's a fund there to fix those issues. And there's also -- so I'm 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 27 of 102 going to let Mr. Sawyer address that. But that has been, you know, the -- determined to be the appropriate fee for every mine I've worked on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And it seems to have been for many years. And, of course, inflation is certainly -- it seems to think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think they -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm sort of under the impression a dollar is not enough. MR. YOVANOVICH: They overcharged us years ago. They finally got it right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff's happy with a dollar. MR. YOVANOVICH: I haven't heard anything where they've said, "Mr. Yovanovich, do you want to change that number?" COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, the other one is there was a strikethrough, and it was originally Condition 20. And where was that? And it was -- the one that required the inspection. If people wanted to have their homes inspected, and that has been now deleted. Is there -- I recall at one time that seemed to have always been available if a homeowner wanted to have an inspection prior to blasting so they would at least have a pre- -- pre-blasting conditional inspections, and if they deemed that blasting caused some kind of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- issue with the homes, they would have a pre-inspection to validate that. And I'm trying to look for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not 20. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was No. 20. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was No. 20 at one time in one of the older versions, and it was lined through. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schmidt, I'll show you where it was. Where's the cursor? It was No. 26. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Twenty-six, okay. A pre-blasting survey shall be taken. And that was lined through. Is that -- is that -- is there a reason why you chose not to agree to do that, or is it just a waste of time? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's probably a combination of there's probably thousands of homes -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that, you know, we would be doing these surveys for. What we -- you know what -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Jeff is fine. MR. STRAW: For the record, Jeffrey Straw again. The original pre-blast inspections were done before there were any blasting at any time. Those were completed. You can't go back now and do a pre-blast inspection because there's blasting ongoing. So that's the reason. It was done and completed I think I said 2004, 2006 when we started, when we first started. That was the first thing we did was do inspections on all those homes. But now there's not really a value in it because houses have been built after, and they have their own existing conditions. So now anything that would be done would be an investigation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That makes sense, because I remember when this came in when I was part of staff, and that was one of the conditions. So I'm a homeowner -- and I'm going back to Mr. Yovanovich. I'm a homeowner. Now I want to register a complaint saying I know this blast caused a crack in my wall. Does that go to the county, or do you have -- do you receive those complaints? How is that -- I mean, because this could get into a legal battle, legal issue. No, it didn't. Those kind of things. Yes? MR. STRAW: The issues that exist is now it's -- I think it's Chapter 55.245 through the state fire marshal's office. The complaint goes to the state fire marshal -- if it's a complaint, it goes to the state fire marshal's office. If there's a complaint of damage, there is a whole procedure 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 28 of 102 under the state fire marshal's office to go through that through the Division of Administrative Hearings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And is there a forensic analysis that's done -- MR. STRAW: It's done. Both sides prepare information, and however that's done. The mine has an opportunity and the homeowner presents evidence. And then there's a mediation initially before it goes to an administrative hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because both you and I know the soil in Florida tends to cause more cracks than the blasting. And I'm not being -- I'm not swaying one way or the other, but -- the rule -- I always know, if you place concrete in Florida, eventually it's going to crack. MR. STRAW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Unless you put the appropriate measures to -- MR. STRAW: That's correct. But the process is there through the state fire marshal. It was developed after the initial regulation went in. It was added, and I think it is 552.45, if I'm not mistaken. But it's part of the construction materials mining activity, but it specifically deals with claims, and there's a process for it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So basically overcome by events then. Now there's clearly a statute, if I'm a homeowner, to file a complaint? MR. STRAW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Straw, don't go away, sir. I think you -- I think you may be best qualified to answer this but, if not, someone else. It's just I don't happen to know the answer. Similar operations, similar blasting operations, are they taking place nearby the applicant's site and, if so, can you say something about where they are and how far removed they are from the residential areas? MR. STRAW: Well, the closest would be in Lee County along Alico Road, and there's three or four major operations there. They've got houses in various areas around them. Cemex has an operation. Vulcan Materials, which is the largest stone producer in the United States, has an operation there. Youngquist Brothers has an operation there. Titan has an operation out on Corkscrew Road. They all have houses around them. I mean, the bulk of the mining is done in Miami-Dade County. And if you look at those areas, you've got three of the top 10 stone producers in the United States that are there. And here we're blasting eight times a month. They're blasting three to four times per day -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wow. MR. STRAW: -- in what they're doing, and their houses are, you know, 1300 or less feet away in some of these. Some of them are much closer but, you know, in that Miami-Dade swath of quarries that, you know, I'm familiar with. But the closest one's here -- I mean, Bonita Grande is one that was mentioned -- I forgot that one -- and that one has people relatively close. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How close to this site? MR. STRAW: Off the top -- MR. YOVANOVICH: To this site? MR. STRAW: The homes to their site, off the top of my head, 1500 feet, somewhere in that ballpark. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So in other words, there are other operators 1500 feet from the proximate residences that we'll be hearing from? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Straighten me out. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think what he's saying, there's nobody in Collier County doing what we're doing. They're all in Lee County. Did I get that right? MR. STRAW: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So there's nobody close. You know, there may be -- there may be 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 29 of 102 occasions where a county's doing a utility project or someone's doing a development lake within their project where they may be blasting, but there's no rock mines -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- close to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: But there are occasional instances of blasting -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- nearby. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. There could be, sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm going to quickly ask Mr. Bosi because I had, I think, slightly different information. Have I got it correct that -- MR. BOSI: I believe you're referring to our Tuesday pre-meeting, and I think Ms. Cook had indicated that there are some occasional locations in proximity that may have blasting, whether it be for lake excavation and various other reasons. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, look who's at the podium. MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, your director of Development Review. Yes, there are other blasting operations occurring, not commercial mines as this is but frequently for development lakes. Terreno has an active blasting permit for their development lakes, the Groves at Orange Blossom, which are both about a mile south of this area of the Estates, both have active blasting permits for their lakes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A mile south? MS. COOK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else have a question along those lines? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, if this is the right time, I want to put an exhibit up to talk about your concept of how we can I'll use the word "abandon" portions of the project as they got completed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the exhibit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: North up. MR. YOVANOVICH: North's up? Did I get that right? Okay. The concept is this blue area is where operations have been completed. We do -- we have to annually update our permit, or we get a new permit every year through staff. Every year we will update this map to show -- increase the blue area of where we're no longer eligible to blast as part of this process. That's -- I think the concept you were talking about is let's -- how do we codify that we're no longer -- as we move along, we're done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How do you surrender part of conditional use square footage or relinquish? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we can -- we could say that this blue area -- other than reclamation, because we have to do some reclamation -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All I'm -- I'm not talking about mining or anything else. I'm talking about blasting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Blasting. We will update it annually to say we give up -- as part of our mine permit, that we're giving up this area to blast. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Should that be a condition? MR. YOVANOVICH: We can put that as a condition, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Counsel? MR. PERRY: I have proposed language if you'd like to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to hear it. MR. PERRY: And Rich hasn't heard this, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we'll all hear it together. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 30 of 102 MR. PERRY: The owner shall blast in a logically progressive manner from east to west, and as the owner completes its operations in a specific blasting area, it shall cease blasting in that area. The owner -- once the owner is finished blasting in the area depicted on the completed excavation exhibit attached hereto as Exhibit E, the owner shall provide Collier County Development Review division with an updated completed excavation exhibit as part of the owner's annual permitting process. The owner commits and covenants to no longer blasting in the areas shown as completed on the completed excavation exhibit as amended annually during county permitting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich? That's satisfactory to me. We'll see what the applicant says. Were you able to hear that, sir? MR. YOVANOVICH: I missed the last part. I was a little nervous about Exhibit E. I stopped listening after he was committing me to an Exhibit E. MR. PERRY: And we'll send it to you. The Exhibit E would be this, but it would be able to be amended annually during the permitting process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, the concept would be this is the base. We're not going to blast where it's blue, and annually we'll update where we're done blasting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine with me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, I don't -- if that's what he just said, in concept, we can get there, but I'd like to see the actual language, because that sounded a lot more complicated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The only thing that caught my ear was he said in east/west progression, so -- did you hear that part? MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You're okay with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: It already says that. COMMISISONER VERNON: I mean, I like it. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're already committed to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If we can actually agree to the language, we don't need to worry about it either coming back on consent or me looking at it on behalf of the Planning Commission. So I hope we can get the exact language. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're fine with this exhibit becoming part of the conditional use and using it as the base that we will annually update. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so the counselor's language is acceptable? Nothing has to come back? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, generally, we already have an obligation to go east to west, so some of that seems to be repetitive, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I just -- I don't want to have to bring this back on consent. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't either. I don't either. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So is the language okay? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure there's going to be public speaking. If he can e-mail it to me, that would help me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Can that be done? Okay. Good. And then before we conclude this, you'll give us a sign-off one way or the other? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything else, sir? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the conclusion of our presentation, if you have any further questions of me or Mr. Shaw [sic] on how this actually works... Again, your staff is recommending approval. I think we -- I know we've met all the conditional-use criteria, and we're well under what the state would permit, and we're further -- we're further limiting ourselves based upon several state-adopted standards. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 31 of 102 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I have two commissioners who are signaling, starting with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So we've been talking mostly about blasting, but you do crush and grade the product there as well, and apparently that operation is not in question. I have not seen or heard any voices against it or even talking about it. I just wanted to make sure -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a normal process. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- everybody knew you are crushing and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We are. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- grading, but that's -- it's far enough away that it's not a nuisance? MR. YOVANOVICH: And we have -- that's the attenuation -- the noise-attenuation provisions address that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, with all due respect, I want to ask everyone to not talk over anyone else, please. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're just simply here to change the blasting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. I'm just saying, though, but we haven't received any complaints about the crushing operation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Rich, with respect to our conversation yesterday, I wondered if you had an opportunity to discuss with your client -- my minute request was on Page 91, at least of our packet, No. 3, to lessen the potential of noise that -- if the equipment is moved, that within six months they would rectify either with a berm to attenuate the noise if the attenuating structure did not work. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mike, can you go back to the -- I'm looking at this and I'm -- I'm putting it up. The answer is we can reduce that to 90 days. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Wonderful. I appreciate that. And another one kind of goes in line with the $1 per truckload. At least on our Page 93, No. 21, I'm wondering when this $500 -- I'm sorry, $500,000 bond was set, if that was back in 2006, '07, or '08, whenever this initially was done. Do we think that's adequate now considering it's 15, 18 years later with the price? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'll say two things: One, it's never been called on in all these years. My client is willing to, you know, increase that number to a million dollars, keeping in mind that, you know, so far it's proven to be more than sufficient, that 500,000. But accounting for it's been a few years since that number's been looked at, we'll go to a million dollars. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I think that goes a long way also in showing good faith to the neighbors. I would hope that would be strongly considered. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll do it. We just said -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Do it. Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That was another condition we'll add. And I was remiss in not making a record on something. Back at 10:40 when we reconvened, I should have made the record that Commissioner Schumacher had to leave due to a business commitment, and we thank him for being here for the time he could. We understand the demands of his business, and his absence from this point forward is excused. Go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. I mean, we're ready to turn it over to staff or answer any more questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. No one is signaling at this time and, therefore, I take that as a segue into the public speaking. So -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 32 of 102 MR. YOVANOVICH: Doesn't staff usually go? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff usually does, yeah, and this might be a good one to have staff. Thank you for correcting me. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Staff reviewed the revised condition of approvals that we received prior to the -- prior to the hearing. We will coordinate with the County's Attorney's office on their consent to the revised commitments. We do recognize that they are more restrictive; that they have provided a little bit more protection. The modified restrictions that the Planning Commission has discussed, staff is supportive of those as well and, as indicated within the staff report, we are recommending approval with these additional conditions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signaling at this point. At this point I want to -- before I call on Commissioner Shea, I had mentioned that Ms. Cook is prepared to go into greater deal with respect to the steps staff takes on each occasion of blasting if anyone wants to hear that. I know she's present and would be able to come forward, but I don't want to -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's my question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is? COMMISSIONER SHEA: My question is, what does the inspector do? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, then, let's have Ms. Cook come up, because she's all over this one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you also show the video? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd like to see that. Is that a video on this site, or was it a video elsewhere? MR. BOSI: It was a video elsewhere, not at this site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But similar type of blasting outfit? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Are we going to see the video first, or are we going to hear from Ms. Cook first? (A video was played.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Holy moly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fire in the hole. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I'd ask that that be run again because I wasn't sure when something was going to happen. (The video was replayed.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone have any questions or comments about the video? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Mr. Bosi. Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Again, Jaime Cook, for the record. So when a blast is to occur, the blaster notifies the county inspectors and sets up a time for the inspector to be on site. So during every blast that occurs, an inspector is on site. If they were to fail to notify us and conduct a blast without us, that's actually a violation of their license, which could then be taken away by ATF under their own procedure. So they do notify us. The inspector is out on site. They do verify that all of the work on site that's going on, whether it's the crushing or digging, anything like, that has ceased. And then they -- the inspector actually goes to where the location of the nearest seismograph is to make sure that it's operating, running, and they stay there. They get the numbers 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 33 of 102 that are on those report during the -- the report that's generated with the blast and verify all the site conditions. If in the event that they notice site conditions or things like weather are not appropriate for the blast, they will stop the blast or delay it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anybody have any questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything further from staff or for them? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, now I think we're ready for registered speakers. Mr. Sabo, Ms. Padron, who do we have? MR. SABO: All right. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 registered speakers. To organize this, we can use both podiums, the one next to staff on the right, the one next to the attorneys on the left. First is Jesse Rose. Next is Harrold Hussmann. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And at the beginning of these proceedings, the witnesses who were present were sworn in, and so before you speak, if you haven't been sworn in, kindly let us know so that we can get that taken care of. MR. ROSE: Yes, sir. I'm Jesse Rose. I was sworn in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Please proceed, sir. MR. ROSE: Thank you. Good morning. As I said, I'm Jesse Rose. I'm a veteran of the United States Air Force. I am retired, so I'm at home during the day, and I often hear the blasting that's happening, and I often hear the house shake and things like that. As far as damage goes, my tile is upheaving in my son's room. And we had ripped up the carpet prior to painting and putting tile down in the extra bedroom. We have four bedrooms. And in that extra bedroom, the foundation has a crack that goes all the way across it. That wasn't there when we pulled up the carpet. So I don't know how it got there, if it was due to the blasting or, you know, what have you, but it is there now. And there's damaged stucco that is on the outside of the house that is chipping, and it also has a crack that is going up the sideline of it. That is surrounding my windows that face the rear of the home. And I think that's about it as far as damage from what I could see, you know, when I inspected the home. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. ROSE: I think that's about it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. First question is how far do you live from the blast area? MR. ROSE: I live on 22nd Street Northeast. So I think approximately, what is it, like a mile. Like a mile. Yeah, like a mile. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And have you filed any formal complaints with the state or -- MR. ROSE: I have not yet, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have not. Okay. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And one other thing, and thank you also for your service in the military. MR. ROSE: Thank you for your support, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would be interested to know if we can establish a causal connection between this applicant and your damage. And so for you and for the other speakers who are going to come up and offer testimony like that, I think it would be helpful to the Planning 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 34 of 102 Commission if you have evidence of causation -- because there is other blasting going on in that area -- we'd like to know about it. MR. ROSE: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. ROSE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Next speaker. MR. HUSSMANN: I'm Harrold Hussmann. I live at 47th Street Northeast, basically on 22, like, three-quarter of a mile from the mine. And we have also damage at the house. Basically, I have one crack that crosses the whole living room, office, and to the lanai. I have cracks on the side where the windows are, and they already know because they had an inspection done at my house, the mine people. I don't know his name, but -- let me see. Harry Blan [sic]. They came already to my house. They put a sensor since. And this was after the September blasting. So my question is, now we have two blastings per week for months. They want to do eight blastings for months. So imagine how much damage they will cause already on our houses. So this is really a big problem, you see, for the homeowners. And we have on -- the south side of the mine, basically on 47th Street, we have 600 houses. On the west side of the mine, we have 800 houses between Everglades Boulevard and the mine. So we're talking 1,500 houses, they are already there, maybe a little bit more, that get damage in one-and-a-half or one mile to one-and-a-half mile radius. So it's a lot of damage. And this will be like, basically, a lot. So what I think is the mine basically needs to lower more of the blasting, not only what they're talking; now they need to lower more or finish the blasting and continue in another way. I don't mind the noise. The blasting is what's causing our home damage. And I have a second concern. The second concern is, you know, blasting, when they make fracking for oil, he told us it's almost the same like what they're doing. So, basically, they are mixing -- they're damaging our groundwater with the well water that we have. So the top water, when they make fracking, that goes in the groundwater. So we all live on wells. So, basically, we get also a contamination from our wells that are close there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Sir, thank you. And we will -- the applicant will have an opportunity to offer rebuttal, and these are points that we will ask the applicant to respond to. MR. HUSSMANN: Perfect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next we have -- just a reminder, both podiums are open, so please line up. Robert Dixon on the right side. Carlos Garcia on the left side. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now, I believe Mr. Dixon and Mr. Garcia spoke before. Under the circumstances -- well, put it this way. I thought that a transcript of their presentations was going to find its way into the packet, and I don't believe it did. And so, without objection, I'm going to allow them to speak again. All right, who was first? MR. DIXON: Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Appreciate you guys being out here again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're Mr. Dixon? MR. DIXON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. DIXON: So there's a reason why there's not thousands of e-mails and -- because thousands of residents that border this mine don't know what's happening. It's happened Monday through Friday, like they said, between the hours of 9 to 4. Ninety percent of everybody goes to work. Nobody even has a clue this is even going on unless people started talking about it, some of the people that are home. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 35 of 102 The two signs for the public hearing notice are set outside the mine, which is about a mile north of the 47th Avenue and Immokalee entrance, where everybody lives. Ninety percent of those people make a left to head into town to go to work. Unless you're going to the casino or you work in Immokalee, nobody goes that way. The signs that were put in were knocked down the first week, and they stayed down. There is very dense population that is to the south of the mine and to the east of the mine. Back when he said they don't do pre-inspections anymore, that's 20 years ago in 2004. They only had a handful of houses out back then. This is very populated. It's very dense. And I wish you were able to pull the map up, and I could show you exactly where it is. But there is thousands of homes with tens of thousands of residents living in these. These all border the mine. Everybody off of Everglades has no idea that there's -- this is even a notice. Nobody even knows because there's no signs out there. But they're immediately adjacent to the mine on the east, and our neighborhood's immediately adjacent to the south. So -- and I know they definitely don't want to do pre-inspections because what they're doing is damaging. I know they're professionals. They've been in their field a long time. They came up and showed us all the numbers, and they're well under. We've all established that. They could do a .5. They're doing way less than that. If they were to come close to a .5, I'm telling you now, let the record show, it's going to be catastrophic. It's going to displace thousands of residents. The structures are going to be unsafe, inhabitable, and we already know that there's a housing crisis already in Naples. There's nowhere to live now. So imagine having to take thousands of people and displace them because their structures aren't safe. They've got to worry about them falling in on them. As far as the September 14th blast, there was no doubt/question. I know they had the thing up there talking about the vibration and the effects. My house has over a dozen cracks on them [sic]. Quality Enterprise came out; they acknowledged it. They also acknowledged that they will correct the damage. They told us, don't fix it yet. Let's wait and see what the future blasts are going to do because there's no sense -- we're going to have to come back and make second repairs. They have yet to come back out or keep their word to come out to fix the damaged structures. We actually requested to have the seismic monitor put there. The direction, I'll give them credit on that. Barry changed the direction on it, and it made a really big difference. September 14th, I felt like I was on a pirate ship in the open seas. It was -- I can't overexplain how much that house moved. It wasn't just a little vibration. The entire house moved, caused numerous cracks, which was already acknowledged by Quality Enterprises. He's been very polite, Barry Blankenship. He came out. He's been doing everything he said with redirecting and all that, and it has gotten better, but it hasn't changed the fact that we're still experiencing a lot of damage to our houses from more frequent blasts. And now they want to go from two to eight, and they want to bring it in 1300 feet closer to the house. Where the blast is right now, they're not even a half a mile from some structures right now, and they want to go closer. And they know what they're doing out there, because they are building that for a housing complex. It was supposed to be smaller houses on the lake it was. They decided they want to double down, triple down, make the lake bigger, triple the houses, triple the profit. They made it clear that there is other means for them to excavate the stuff in here without doing the blasting. Nobody has any problems with the noise, this. The dump trucks are a little bit of a nuisance because they're up and down 47th on the hour every hour, every five minutes. But the only complaint that I think from the neighborhood so far -- and there's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that are finally catching on on the social media sites, Facebook, neighbors next door. A lot of people are just being aware of this. If they bring that closer and go from two blasts to eight blasts even closer to our house, it 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 36 of 102 doesn't matter what level they're doing it at. I mean, they're already well below the level now, and we're experiencing negative effects to our structures and our houses. And we plead to you to -- you know, it's quicker -- if they blast, they can get it all out quicker, they can get the houses quicker, they can make their money and their profit and press on, and they're all happy. They don't want to sit out there for five years having to dig the slow way when they can blow everything up in two years. I get that from a business aspect. But those houses, they're very condensed, and they border the entire thing, and we're getting rocked out there. Even with all the things that they've changed, our houses are getting rocked. We're getting damage. And nobody knew how to file a complaint until today, which I understand the state fire marshal, so that's nice because we were never told. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're at the five-minute mark, sir. MR. DIXON: Understood. There's a lot of houses that border that. There's a lot of damage being done. And I don't know how much they need to lower it or just go the old-fashioned way and just dig it and take a little bit more time but, you know, the homeowners, we need support; we need help from everybody. We all know there's growth. We understand that. But we shouldn't be having to suffer and have everything that we've worked for damaged for something that's going to be built five years from now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. DIXON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please. MR. GARCIA: Good afternoon. My name is Carlos Garcia. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here to you-all today. I appreciate the work that you do. It is my experience that -- from the questions that I hear that some of you commissioners ask, you guys are smart. You guys are on point. And I'm not saying that for nothing. I'm saying that because it really impressed me that you guys actually care. The general public doesn't think that way. The general public thinks that, you know, everybody's getting money put in their pocket. So that said I'm going to -- I'm going to start. The definition of a rapid burn, do you know what that is? What is a definition of a rapid burn? It's an explosion. You know how I know that? Because I'm a firefighter. The South Florida building code does not provide for our houses to receive or experience explosions. Our homes are built to Collier County code and South Florida building code. The numbers and the graphs and everything that you saw, very pretty, very well prepared. But the truth is that our homes are not built that way. When our house received a certificate of occupancy 21 years ago at this location, there was no mining operations happening at that time. I've lived there 21 years. I own five properties on that same street. The young lady that spoke here earlier, she talked about Lee County and other projects that are going on in the area. Those projects are over a mile away from us. That's 5,280 feet plus. This project is less than 1300 feet is what they're asking. I don't understand how somebody in the right capacity would think that it's okay to go ahead and blast closer to our homes. We're already experiencing problems. Why would you allow them to come any closer? It doesn't make any sense. Our homes have significant damage. And matter of fact, I encourage any of you sitting on this board to come to my house and take a look. I welcome you. Mr. Schmidt, earlier he talked about how he was a combat engineer in the military. So was I. I understand explosives. I know how explosives work, and there's no place for them near our homes. It doesn't make any sense. And I'm asking that you do not allow them to below and explode any closer. They're very eloquent when they speak. They use great words. They have beautiful graphs and pictures, but I'm more of a common sense kind of guy. To me it doesn't make any sense to allow them to come 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 37 of 102 any closer for any amount of money. The video you saw, the last video that we saw with the explosions going up in the air, that synchronized explosion, it's not a blast. It's an explosion. The particles you saw flying in the air, those are the cardboard tubes that they use. That's what -- that's how powerful that is. It blows the tubes out of the ground. What you can't see is what's called fly rock. Fly rock is the material that's blowing up in the air that's not on the video. You can't see it. How high -- nobody asked that question because they don't know. We're not all experts; not everybody knows. But how high does that fly rock fly? That's why they call it fly rock. It goes miles up in the air. It damages homes. We're over here looking at air waves and things like that, but it's reality what we're looking at. One thing is what's on paper, and one thing is reality. The truth is, you know, is what they want you to see versus what we're experiencing. I don't know if you ever had a constituent stand up here and ask you to come to my home. I welcome you to come to my home. Take a look at it for yourself. We're not here for no reason. We're not here to waste anybody's time, and we thank you for your time. This is significant. This is important. This is our home. This our biggest investment. I'm not a new person here to Collier County, and we're definitely not Lee County. I take pride in that. I'm here intentionally. I came to Collier County on purpose. This is not Lee County. We're not -- we're not at the standards of Lee County. So I don't want to be compared by anybody else. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for your service in the military and also as a first responder. MR. GARCIA: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next two speakers. Jesus Mesa on the right side there, and Denzil Medford on the left side. MR. MEDFORD: I'm Denzil Medford. And we are at 47 -- 4760 22nd Street Northeast. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I didn't catch your last name, sir. MR. MEDFORD: Denzil Medford. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Medford, thank you. MR. MEDFORD: And my wife is Zephina Medford. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MEDFORD: And we're at 4760 22nd Street Northeast. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. MR. MEDFORD: I am like the other gentleman there, I'm glad that you allow us to come and to hear what they are saying and to see and to hear what these experts supposed to say. These experts are supposed to say the thing to benefit them, but I haven't heard none of them say anything that they're interested or want to know how the people around there that own homes feel. And I don't think -- especially this guy here that just said -- I don't remember your name. We just want to make you all comfortable. He's not interested in making the people that live around his bombsite comfortable. He doesn't think of them at all as far as he's saying. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may, sir, personal attacks like that don't help your position. MR. MEDFORD: That's -- maybe I'm too upset to hear someone saying things like he just come to make you comfortable and forgetting about all the guys that -- all the people that bought their homes and living in the area. He never mentioned nothing about those guys, about us or what -- why do we think we own the home? Because we want someplace to live. And I think at least -- he could at least say something. We're going to make sure that the homes around his bombsite is protected before they start trying to destroy any further. Like the guy said, if you got -- if we got a crack along the floor from east to west -- or the master bedroom, there's a crack there three-eighths of an inch, why? From -- on the outside of the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 38 of 102 west wall? There's a crack going right down by the window, our front window, that is causing -- it couldn't just be caused by the wind. It had to cause by their explosions. And, like, they want to expand it more? Or maybe he wouldn't find a house on our street or my house, let's see, when he go down the street if he start to increase the explosion. And the gentleman that says that he just measured the six inches into the sand, well, he's blasting rock, but he's measuring six inches into the sand with his -- with the meter. Well, naturally, rock is going to take more to explode than sand, and he's measuring if the sand is move, but the sand will give any time easier than the rock. So when the seismic measurements saying -- in his wave graph that he said, the sand is not going to move like to the rock. And we are still under -- the house is built on the rock between -- the sand between us and the rock. And maybe that measurement is not going to tell you exactly how much the house is shaken. And it can't be from the wind out here or around the house that caused the cracks in the walls. He can come and look in our house and all they did there and see the cracks in our house. He's welcome, because it will be there when he comes to see it, if he comes to see it. And like all the other things that make it, I want to say, everybody wants to make money, and everybody wants to have some place to live. And if they choose to live there, as I said, if he had said that we're going to blow -- we're going to blast around your area, maybe I wouldn't go there, but if the house is there and now he wants to increase the explosive pressure even more, I don't think that should happen. But then who am I to say you can't do it when he's trying to make the comments and everybody's feeling happy. And I'm not going to start calling -- as you said, attacking people, but I'm not comfortable with what they're saying. At least pay a little bit more attention of what's going on with the area of the home -- and with the homes in the area a little bit more, that we can at least see that you care. And as for using the pneumatic drills and whatever to get the rock out, I rather he do it for -- if he want to do it for 10 years, fine, but explosions, and that's the one -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're at the five-minute mark, sir. MS. MEDFORD: I just have one question for concern, if I am able to and that is the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, why don't you tell us who you are. MS. MEDFORD: I'm sorry. Zephina Medford. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And you've been sworn in? MS. MEDFORD: I didn't, but I'm his wife, so I thought -- 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? MS. MEDFORD: Nothing but the truth. The truth is that I am living -- this house we have is very close in my estimation, maybe too close, for all this that is going on. I am -- like, when I go for walks in the morning, I would say, it takes me about three-quarters of an hour much to get to this blast site. You understand that? And I walk pretty fast, too, at 84 -- or 83. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to be sure that we pick up everything you're saying, so you might get a little closer to the mic, would you, and maybe lower it just a little bit so that -- MS. MEDFORD: Okay. I'm saying my fear is -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your husbands going to help. There we go. MS. MEDFORD: The truth of my fear is that I am too close -- my house is too close for all of this carry ons on. I don't know much about construction and stuff, but in my medical opinion, I know that I am a little bit too close, and to come in further would be dangerous to me, and that's my fear. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MEDFORD: And I want something to be done, hopefully, that you would consider my fear. Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 39 of 102 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Next two speakers, Mr. Chairman, Rae Ann Burton, she can go to the left podium, and Ken Schmidt to the right podium. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we sure know Ms. Burton. Welcome back. MS. BURTON: Yeah. It's been a while. You guys have been pretty good boys. Okay. My name is Rae Ann Burton. I live in Golden Gate Estates, Rural Golden Gate Estates. I spent around five hours researching and trying to read the documents attached to Attachment 3, 343 pages. From 199, those pages were almost too faint to read. I received the letter for this meeting December 29th, '23, but on June the 20th, '23 there was no letter or -- I'm not even on the list. On Nextdoor, a lady said she didn't receive the notice until two days ago. I read the report of June the 20th. There was many questions asked by the public which were ignored by the promoters. Were told to go to website or call them. And at the end of -- they actually closed the meeting refusing to answer questions. I noticed the sign that's in the packet's not even for mining. It's for HB Family Trust of 150 units of affordable housing. There's no map or details. But I am familiar with vibrations. I live on 31st Avenue Northeast. I know what Terreno did. I know the vibrations shook my house, and I'm not that far from it. And they were only blasting to build lakes so they could sell lakefront homes. Today I've heard of damage done in the past. Can the developers guarantee that this blasting won't create sink holes or even worse? Earthquakes also create vibrations. These developers don't live in the Estates or county, so their only concern is profit, not creating a home, which we moved there to enjoy. I have learned that figures don't lie, but liars do lie, and that goes for words as well, to prove their point. Just to get approval to build for profit what they want, disregarding the concerns of the impacted residents. There has to be something. Growth has to be controlled. Growth is inevitable, but there is also a saying, if you build it, they will come. So if you stop building, maybe they won't come, and we won't have to build. It's creating havoc on our roads. It's creating traffic. It took me 55 minutes to get from my home in Golden Gate Estates off of 31st Avenue Northeast. I am off of Everglades. I took Golden Gate Boulevard to Pine Ridge to Airport. It should not take you that long. When I lived in Indiana, it took me that long to dust off my car of snow and 15 minutes to get to work. Now it takes the opposite. So I want you to really consider it. I don't really live that close in the area, but I know what can be done from the vibrations I got from Terreno, and they were only building for lakes. This property has been a bad item. It started out as Immokalee rural village. It's part of that. Something has to be done. We need to get control, and the public needs to have their concerns heard. We live here; the developers don't. One doesn't even live in this state, and the other one doesn't even live in the county. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you leave the podium, I want to be sure I understand. Are you saying that the signage for this project was incorrect? MS. BURTON: It is incorrect, yes, sir. I will show it. Just a second. Affidavit -- attachment for Legal Aid, sign affidavit, and photos. I blew up the sign. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Put it on the visualizer, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Put it on the visualizer. Have the county to that. MS. BURTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, yeah. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 40 of 102 MS. BURTON: It doesn't say anything about mining. I checked the PLs, and it say H&B Family Trust. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Please use the microphone. MS. BURTON: Oh, sorry. The PLs are for the H&B Family Trust. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: That's an error on staff's part. Staff included the wrong sign within the package. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But the correct sign was erected? MR. BOSI: We have received -- we have documentation that the sign was -- and we will forward that to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can you forward it to me and Derek, and we'll get it printed so we can give it to the court reporter for the record. MR. BOSI: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. PERRY: And I did -- I do want to mention I conferred with staff, and they are actively trying to get the photo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Okay. So I think Ms. Burton, what staff's position is is that the wrong sign was put into the packet but the correct sign was used at the site. MS. BURTON: I have no idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Neither do we. MS. BURTON: Because it was in there. But to find a flaw in that, I mean, that a lot of documentation on these things, like I said, that one documentation, 343 pages. But if these are legal documents, they're presented to the public, and they should be correct. There should not be any errors. But the -- that's what I'm saying. We're afraid too many things are being manipulated to benefit the developer, and we the public are being ignored, we're being traveled [sic] over, and we're paying the infrastructure fees. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for your testimony. And I think, at least in my view, as long as the correct signage were posted with the accurate information on it, that should suffice, but we're going to have to -- the county's going to have to come up and show us and testify that that's the case. Next speaker, please. MR. SCHMIDT: My name is Ken Schmidt. I live at 4425 16th Street Northeast. And, basically, I think my wife and I are here just to express our interest in this topic. And I wanted to come up and just reinforce a couple of things that my neighbors have already pointed out. The first one is the whole issue of the lack of information about this operation. I've lived at this address for 10 -- more than 10 years, and purchased the house. I had no idea that there was a mining operation adjacent to the neighborhood, basically, that I live in. It wasn't disclosed in any of the real estate transaction, which actually is very surprising to me. I would think that the county would have some type of a requirement to make this be known to people who are considering investing substantial sums of money in homes when they are adjacent to this type of operation. Like I said, I've lived there for over 10 years. I'm a little -- I'm a little embarrassed to admit that the first few times I became aware of these blasts, I literally thought they were sonic booms. I don't know if you've experienced a sonic boom, but they are very disruptive to your house, and that's exactly what these things feel like. When you're in your house, you get this boom, and it does feel like it's shaking the house. Now, I'm an engineer. I see the numbers up here, and I understand what these gentlemen are saying in terms of the data doesn't support that position in terms of what the potential damage 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 41 of 102 could be, but I also listen to these people, and I'm kind of convinced that maybe, in reality, something is different than what's expressed up here in these numbers. The other think I thought was very interesting, one of my other neighbors pointed out, is the potential impact on our groundwater. I didn't hear any discussion at all about that. And as an environmental engineer, I could see many different opportunities for this type of blasting operation to be detrimental to our groundwater, since we all rely on wells. So that's all I have to comment about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. Mr. Schmidt, thank you. And I'm not looking at the list, but you did not receive -- the county requires a petitioner to send out a letter notifying residents of both a neighborhood information meeting where the applicant briefs those who are interested to show up; they brief the residents of what the petition's about. Of course it's advertised, a sign's put up, and then there's letters sent. You never -- did you -- you never received a letter? MR. SCHMIDT: Not to my knowledge. We never -- never received a letter. The only reason we're here today is because somebody in our neighborhood went around and hung notices about this meeting -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you -- MR. SCHMIDT: -- with -- incidentally, with your e-mail addresses, and that's probably why you got an e-mail from me and from my wife. But other than that, we wouldn't have been notified. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And your address for the record. MR. SCHMIDT: 4425 16th Street Northeast. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sixteenth Street. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that within the notice perimeter? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that -- that's the next question. MR. BOSI: I've got to look at the map, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll check that out. MR. SCHMIDT: I mean, it certainly is within the blast area, because I'm very well aware of the blast. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The county just -- the county has very specific rules for advertising -- of course, it's advertised and legally it's advertised in the paper of greatest -- MR. SCHMIDT: Right. I think that's a rule that probably ought to change -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Distribution. MR. SCHMIDT: -- because how many people actually get the newspaper anymore? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. But it's also -- it's also -- you read -- receive -- applicants [sic] who are near by receive letters -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and then it's also the signs posted. So I don't know -- other than that, it's -- and you mentioned about being noticed. Well, that's basic -- I have to say, that's the due diligence of the person who buys the home knowing that what they're -- we hear that often. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A realtor always told me this was going to be a preserve when, clearly, on the zoning maps it's industrial or it's C-3 or whatever. MR. SCHMIDT: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, I can accept that. I mean, maybe I should have done a little bit more due diligence. But, still, this is a major impact for the homes in this area. And considering 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 42 of 102 the amount of growth that you-all are planning for the area surrounding this mine, it seems to me that this is just -- this is just not a good idea to expand it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MR. SABO: Mr. Chair, there are two more speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. SABO: Maria Gutierrez and Heather Wallace, please. MS. GUTIERREZ: Good morning. My name is Maria Gutierrez, and I'm here because I would like to support my neighbors, and I would like for you to hear my voice also about the damages at home. I have been living there -- my address, 4580 10th Street Northeast. And the first damage that we notice at home years ago was on the floor, the cracks that goes from the living room to the dining room. Eventually there are cracks on the ceiling, that -- most recently that my husband and my daughter has been telling me are new cracks in the garage and other areas -- of the house. But since I have limited of English, anyway, I decided to come today just to let you know that there are been a lot of damages and also because I got this notice in my mail about this meeting today, and I got lucky because my daughter was able to bring me here this morning. But I just hope that you are able to consider maybe to relocate this mining because I hear today talking about the vibration, and I -- talking about other things. But how about the feeling when we are at home and we feel the vibration that is coming from somewhere, and then the shaking of the house and the windows? It's not for a long time. I do remember one day that years ago I called the police, and I asked them if we had an earthquake or was it blasting in the area? And they say probably was a blasting. And I remember last year, was March 29, I think, 31, also I remember also that day because I called the commissioner office to ask about what's going on. They tried to answer my questions. They said, oh, there are blastings in other areas, not specifically in the mining. But I do remember that time back then I went direct to the mining main entrance to get a phone number and to look for somebody to complain about it, but there was not any phone number or nobody there in the main entrance to ask for my questions. And my neighbors already talk about their concern, and I think that's all from me today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And you speak very good English. MS. GUTIERREZ: Thank you. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, there is one additional speaker, Diane Schmidt, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Hi there. MS. WALLACE: Hi. I have not been sworn in. Okay. Well, we'll take care of that. 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? MS. WALLACE: I do. My name's Heather Wallace. I've lived on 47th. I'm right there at 16th Street. I'm 1580 47th Avenue Northeast. I've been there since 1998. This has been a problem we've known about. In 2005 and 2006, a friend of mine bought a house down the street. Now, she lives across the street, which is closer to the mining. And there were cracks in her floor. She had cracks in the walls. But due to the time, if you remember the housing crisis and people lost their homes and foreclosed, and a lot of people didn't complain because they had other issues going on, but that was one of her major issues was the shaking of the house and the mines. She's since left, and so maybe you didn't hear any complaints back then in 2006 because, you know, they were trying to sell their house at the time. And I think a lot of people on the other side had that problem. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 43 of 102 Now, across -- I don't know if they've moved the mine since then. I think they may have, because I'm getting it worse. I noticed -- I thought it was a sonic boom as well. I thought -- because stuff's falling off the wall. I got a new crack in my foundation on the garage, which I was just going to contact my insurance company. I didn't even know who to call or what to do. And then I was going to go out there and just fill it with some Quikcrete thinking, well, I'll just fill in the crack. But this is a bigger issue if you guys are going to increase this. And I just am grateful for Mr. Dixon for coming around and notifying people in the neighborhood because we had -- I didn't know. I had no idea this was going on, that we could come and talk, and I just thought that, you know, there was nothing we could do about it. So I hope that you can see these meters and all these things that are showing that this is not causing damage. In reality, we've got people that are being -- their homes are damaged, and their foundations are cracking. And I know there's other reasons you could have that happen, but when you're at home -- because now most people are working from home, and they see this between 9 and 4. You used to just come home and see something on the floor and think, oh, I think -- I wasn't here. What happened? Well, now we know that -- I'm at home and I can see the stuff falling off the walls when a sonic boom or -- it's not a sonic boom, but it feels like it. It really does. The whole house shakes. You feel like you're in some kind of war zone. And if we're going to have this eight times a month, I think that's something to be concerned about, and I'd like information on who to report it to because I don't even know what to do about that, so... All right. I don't have anything else to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. MS. SCHMIDT: Diane Schmidt. Thank you for allowing me to speak. And I want to say to the commissioners that you got two e-mails from our house, so I'm sure there were more than 40. And if there had been a meeting in Golden Gate after 5 o'clock, you would have had a lot more public input on this subject. I also want to address the term "vibrations" because I would call them tremors. I've lived in minor earthquake zones, I've felt tremors, and it's similar when the blasting goes off. I'm sure not every time, but a significant amount of time. The company asked for copies of our e-mails. I would like to ask for copies of their response to my e-mail. I think that's only fair. And I was not aware that we could contact the company and file complaints. I'd love to get a business card so I know where to voice my feelings about what's going on in the community. The -- Mr. Straw mentioned that this is like throwing a rock in water. Water is a consistent substance. I don't think that's a fair comparison. He, himself, even said you can't predict the density of rock. There are pockets, dirt and stone. So I question that there's only four monitors in the community. I also particularly question that there are no monitors around the huge substation that was built north of 74th Avenue. Was this structure built to withstand multiple blasts? And were -- the standards that were presented, were they for one-time blasts or were they for repeated blasts of whatever substance they use? And, I'm sorry, I was making notes while people were talking. Oh, and it was mentioned there wasn't a need for pre-inspection. Well, in the City of Naples, they do pre-inspections for individual homes before construction is allowed in their area. A pre-inspection would at least give you a point to start from and then a comparison point. Why can't we get that in the community? And -- I'm sorry. I'm looking at my notes here. So I also had never considered the water issue, and that is significant. And I will make sure that I send my complaints to the business and, also, I will make the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 44 of 102 commissioners known every time there is an effect, because I see that was a lack on my part, a lack of knowledge. And posting a sign north on Immokalee Road from 47th Avenue, I don't travel there. I don't go to the casino. I didn't receive anything. I don't read the newspaper because we don't get it. I'm concerned. I'm opposed to this change. Like my neighbors, I'm opposed to this change. It seems to me there was a change less than a year ago. Why are we permitting another change when there are alternate methods that could be considered? Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Any further speakers? MR. SABO: There are no further speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And nothing -- nobody's online? MR. SABO: Nobody online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anyone in the room who has not registered to speak but wishes to be heard on this, please raise your hand. Seeing no hands raised -- we just heard from you. MS. SCHMIDT: I know. I forgot one point I wanted to make. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, come on up. Come on up. MS. SCHMIDT: Diane Schmidt again. The other point I wanted to make was the county spent a lot of money putting water and sewer lines on 47th Avenue, 16th Street, 14th Street. Has anything been done to monitor the impacts of multiple blasts to these lines? There's a lot of joints there. They're going to be subjected to regular continuous stress. That's the point I forgot to make. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. And with that, we will close the public comment segment of this hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. Sir, you've already been heard. MR. MEDFORD: I wanted to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come on up. MR. MEDFORD: And I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Wait till you get to the mic. MR. MEDFORD: I want to -- like you said, I want to apologize for -- if ever someone think I'm attacking them personally. I did not -- I didn't mean to attack anyone personally. I just kind of was probably too high to say what I have to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand completely, sir, and I'm sure so does the applicant's representative. And sometimes we get -- MR. MEDFORD: For that I apologize again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. MR. MEDFORD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apology's accepted, and you're a decent soul. Thank you. With that, we close the public comment segment. And we will ask the applicant to rebut. And before you start, before Mr. Yovanovich, we're due to have a break in eight minutes. So do you want -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we just do it now, if you don't mind. I'd hate to get started and get stopped. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection from the Planning Commission -- well, let's see to decide how long we want to go before -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'd rather hear his rebuttal and delay lunch if we could, while we have continuity from the comments, personally. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can delay lunch. We can't delay a court reporter break, but that's considerably shorter than a lunch. And -- but I want to hear from anybody else who wants to be heard on that before I -- all 5.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 45 of 102 right. Well, in order to not break up your continuity, we'll take a 10-minute break now and return at 12:03. (A brief recess was had from 11:53 a.m. to 12:03 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. And just to let you know, on the visualizer, before you get into the applicant's rebuttal, I can post -- or I can show a display of the signs that were posted. And just to let you know that there was a thousand-foot notification radius around the property lines of the mine for people who received notice. So the individuals who have indicated that they had not received notice, it's because they were outside of that thousand feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And we as a Planning Commission have argued about wanting to extend that. But if the notice was given within the current rules, then so be it. MR. BOSI: The mile for the Estates applies to the Estates. This is an ag-zoned property. And even though it's surrounded by Estates, it's still -- per the code, it's a thousand feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: To me, that would make it even worse because now you have bigger lots, and you could have an announcement that goes to nobody almost. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we fought this battle a year or two or three ago. MR. BOSI: It's for Estates, and it was for Estates-zoned property, and that's what the code says. We have to follow the code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Yes, we do. MR. BOSI: And on the visualizer, the sign -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. BOSI: The four locations of the sign are displayed, and it's -- I know it's pretty tough to see, but they have the allocation of the dates for the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners. I also have the sign for the original date that they put when it was scheduled -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: But that was superseded. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, this is -- this is a case of a compiler's error when the packet was being put together, and it seems to me no harm no foul because the correct notice was posted for the correct period of time at the correct location. MR. BOSI: And they did provide, you know, the affidavit to us that they were posted at the right period of time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mike, can you help me get back to my presentation? MR. BOSI: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: One of these days I'm going to understand technology. Perfect. That's right where I want to be. MR. BOSI: Right there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. I think that's right where he wants to be. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you want to do it as a slide show display? Ms. Padron is coming up because she's the expert. Here she comes, Mike. She's going to save you. Yeah, it's that little fancy thing on the bottom, Mike. MR. YOVANOVICH: I feel better now. Let me -- I just want to start with we're not insensitive to the comments we received from the public, and I don't want any comments that I make or any of our experts to come across as they're not -- that they -- I know they're having experiences with their house. We probably have all had experiences with our house. Stucco cracks. Concrete cracks. It's just a fact of life. But you heard from our expert that the science has been studied for many, many, many, many years, and the state has established parameters for allowing blasting to occur to make sure 5.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 46 of 102 damage doesn't happen to residences near by. We have agreed to impose greater standards on ourselves to further assure that damage is not resulting from the operations of the mine and the blasting done by us. We also, in response to the initial comments which were, hey, ever since you came to meet with us on the 14th, it's gotten better. That's what was said, and it was said again today. So we have reduced the amount of charge from 100 pounds to 85, and we have reduced the number of holes that can be done in any month from 1680 to 1320. I think we should probably add another condition that says we should start the timing of the blast in a way that it's going to assure that -- I'm going to use the word "energy" because I don't know what the right word is -- goes away from where we're starting instead of the other way, because that was a change that was made after the 14th and seemed to be addressing concerns of the neighbors regarding the potential impact of the blast. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, I think, from the Planning Commission, we would accept that as a third condition. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I haven't promised anything that you can't live with, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: They're going to aim them away. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We'll do it in a way where the sequence of timing is to go away from residences. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. There is a process for people to file a claim with the fire marshal if they think we've damaged the home. Our Condition No. 30 said we're going to notify people within a mile of -- every year, if you want to get on a list for us to contact you to let you know we're going to do some blasting, we will let you know. The model's [sic] a long way away from the mine to give people an opportunity to be notified. And we'll mail the notice to people within a mile and say, please give us your information if you want to be notified. Now, maybe 24 hours' notice isn't enough, so we can -- we'll increase that to 72 hours' notice. So you have time to understand when the blast is going to come, and if you want to take pictures of your house, say here's how it was before the blast and here's how it is after the blast, that will help them have plenty of notice to maybe put themselves in a better position to start the process of verifying what they're saying is the cause. I'll let smarter people like the fire marshal figure it all out whether it really was what we're doing versus, you know, something else. We want -- and when I said I wanted to make you comfortable that we're doing it right, I wanted the people in the audience to also be comfortable that what we're doing is better than what the code requires, and the code is set up in a way that it won't cause damage, what we're doing. The way we operate will not cause damage to their homes. So I think we've been responsive and we've been responsible in our requests. We've -- you know, we want people to know we're going to blast. We wanted to give them the opportunity to get comfortable that we're not the cause of their damage. And if we are the cause of their damage, we've just -- we have -- we have a bond in place that gets replenished. You know, if we do more than a million dollars' worth of damage to people's cumulative houses, we've got to replenish it. We'd have to replenish if it was only 500,000. So it's just more that's there sooner rather than later to address things that we've done. The science is the science. The science shows that we're doing what's required. We will not create a problem if we expand the boundaries to 1300 feet from the boundaries -- I guess I should go back to where that is. And that's the nearest point is 1300 feet. So I'm further away, obviously. We've met the criteria. It's a quasi-judicial hearing. The expert testimony is clear. Your staff is recommending approval. And we're requesting that you approve -- or recommend approval of our conditional-use request to increase the area where we can blast. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 47 of 102 We've always had the ability to blast eight times in a month. We're not asking to expand that. We're going to live within the eight times a month that we already agreed to. We've reduced the number of holes, and we've reduced the charge. And I think we have responded to comments from the public, and we are -- my client is entitled to an approval of this conditional use. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you didn't go from two to eight blasts a month as we've heard several -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. We've always had the ability to do eight, yep; eight days. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We've got -- do you still want to be signaled? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We've got two commissioners, starting with Vice Chair Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Yovanovich, you said you reduced the charge. What was your charge -- how many pounds were you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: A hundred was originally. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A hundred originally. MR. YOVANOVICH: Down to 85. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're reducing to 85. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you have a blasting expert with you here today? MR. YOVANOVICH: I have the operator. Well, I have Jeff, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I want to know why 85? Why 85, and why the number of holes? I just -- I need to understand why you have to have the size charge you have to do -- is this an economics issue? Is this a -- is this an issue that has to do with the best practices? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're -- and I'll bring him up if you need me to. But we're required to go 20 feet below water level, and that's the amount of charge we need for it to be effective to break up the rock so we can get the rock. So we've reduced it, Commissioner Schmitt, from 100, which would have been already -- which would have originally been allowed to what we need. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Explain to me a charge out there. How many holes are we digging on one charge? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to bring Barry up because -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: One blast. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One blast. I want to know, how many holes are we digging? MR. BLANKENSHIP: Barry Blankenship, Quality Enterprises USA. On a normal blast, we're allowed, I believe it's 301 or 302. We've made -- we've always planned to keep that down closer to 200 so we keep it at a lower level. We need a minimum of 100 when the blaster shows up because that's the minimum amount they will show up for. But if we do that over and over and over, then we exhaust our charges out, you know, for eight times a month, and then we don't have enough material. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we're talking about a matter of efficiency and effectiveness? MR. BLANKENSHIP: Both. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What if I said to you, reduce to 100 holes and only 50 pounds? MR. BLANKENSHIP: Then it becomes cost prohibitive, you know, at this point because it drives -- it drives the cost per ton, you know, of the material that you're excavating up to where, you know, we can't afford to sell it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you just answered the question. It's more cost effective for the operator? MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yeah. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 48 of 102 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I personally think 80 is too much. MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yeah. But based on what? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just on my experience with explosives. And nobody's explained to me why 85 is the right number now when we had 100. MR. BLANKENSHIP: That's the minimum that we can get away with to be able to drill the depth that -- where the lake has a minimum of 20 feet depth below water level that it will blast that material. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But if you reduce the number of holes and you reduce the charge, you may only operate three days a week. I don't really care. I'm worried about the effectiveness and the explosiveness and the damage that -- alleged that is being caused throughout the -- throughout the community. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Commissioner Schmitt, we currently have the right to continue blasting at 100 pounds a hole. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can do it effectively at 85 pounds a hole. If you reduce us to where you want to reduce us to, you put the mine out of business or you make it so expensive for the rock for people to use, you can't afford it. This is an important -- as you know, this is an important resource for roads and everything else in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. Okay. Let me follow up with another question, then. Of all the complaints you've heard, how many of these homes have been inspected? And was there any determination that the mine was at fault versus shifting of the soils or other types of things that typically result in cracking of homes? Has there been any type of investigation of these homes? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to ask you -- the only one I know about personally is Mr. Dixon. I don't know if anybody else has complained. Have you heard from anybody else besides Mr. Dixon? MR. BLANKENSHIP: I have visited about six homes over the past two years of complaints. Of those, all of the ones I visited, for the majority purposes, appears to be stucco cracks. I did witness one yesterday that I went to that has some zigzags of the blocks that -- but I can't tell by looking at it how long it's been. It's been a long time since it's been there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I understand. You probably would have to have some kind of structural analysis -- MR. BLANKENSHIP: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- forensic analysis to determine whether there was a structural issue, foundation issue, or otherwise. And like I said before, the old rule of thumb was if you place concrete in Florida, it's eventually going to crack unless you have expansion joints placed properly. I go back to my grad school days. It was no more than six feet. And, I mean, I remember that teacher -- that professor pounding that in my head when I studied concrete. Six or nine feet, anything beyond that, you're going to get a crack unless you reinforce, rebar and otherwise. MR. BLANKENSHIP: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So -- but that -- we've -- we're dealing with perception of the community. MR. BLANKENSHIP: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're dealing with this is being caused by the mine operation. And I'm trying to figure out what have you done to convince them otherwise other than you inspected it? Has -- you've not done any type of forensic analysis or structural analysis? MR. BLANKENSHIP: I took photos -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you proceed, let's have the record show that you're Mr. Blankenship. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 49 of 102 MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes, Barry Blankenship. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead. MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes. I took photos of what I saw there. We did not investigate deeper into it -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BLANKENSHIP: -- to determine. I told Mr. Dixon and Mr. Harrold both, whenever I visited their house, that I took the photos. We would look at it later, see if there was any change in cracks that I saw that are the surface cracks on the outside. In Mr. Harrold's house, there was a crack across the floor that you can see that it's cracked through the tiles in the floor. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the onus is on the homeowner to hire the professional to prove that it wasn't structural? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the way the code works, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, I'm going back to the 85 is now what you're reducing to? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that 85 is a scientific determination. And the number of holes was how many, again, per blast? MR. YOVANOVICH: For the number of holes per is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, not per month. Per blast. Because I'm concerned about the blast. MR. YOVANOVICH: Barry, come back up and tell us how many holes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's 85 pounds -- 85 pounds -- MR. BLANKENSHIP: We're averaging right now around 200. We're trying to hover around that number, which is only two-thirds of what we're allowed. Okay. We have a maximum amount per blast, so you could have small blasts combined with a large number that equals up to the 1600. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But as far as I know, there's no restriction in the state building code, international building code, you know, the IBC or any of the -- which the state code follows, the building code? There's no restrictions on seismic activity? I know there's issues about seismic, but there's no -- is there any type of restrictions that says you can go up to 100? MR. YOVANOVICH: We cannot -- and I'm -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know the conditional use. I'm talking about in practice. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd like Jeff to come up here. Because, theoretically, we could do one day and do all 1320 holes as long as we don't exceed the .2 feet per second -- and sorry, .2 inches -- inch per second. So that's the standard we need to measure by is how do we know we're not going to cause damage, and that's the standard. MR. STRAW: Let me talk about just a minute -- go back in history. When this project started, they looked at how much pounds per hole that was going to be used. Originally, it was the 100 because that was where they started; that was what the blasting contractor at that point in time, not having the benefit of having had any blasts in that site, said they needed, okay. It is a relationship -- as I talked about powder factor earlier, it is the relationship of the amount of explosives to the density of the rock. It is calculated scientifically. And what the blaster has come out with is that we can reduce that to 85 pounds per delay. Now, any less, they don't break the rock effectively. The problem there is, yes, all the things about cost. But for the neighbors, it increases ground vibration. Ground vibration is what they're concerned about. The maximum pounds per hole that we are dealing with is what controls the amount of vibration. So if I shoot one hole or I shoot 1600 or the 1320, they're all going to be separated by time, thousandths of a second. That's this delayed consequential blasting that we use. We still need the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 50 of 102 85 pounds, and that's at the edge of what they need to actually break that rock. They shoot that whether it's one hole or multiple holes because they're all separated. The more holes that they blast, the better the fragmentation, the more energy goes into actually breaking and moving the rock, the more efficient the blast is, the less waste energy you have. Vibration is waste energy. So the 85 is where we need to be. The number of holes doesn't necessarily make an issue other than they have, you know, the eight times. So they blast the larger shots to comply with what is going on. If their need is 200 holes, they could shoot 100 and 100, and there's there 200, but their need for the month is greater than that to produce the volume of rock that Barry's talking about needing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So is -- I'm now -- I'm confused. Is 85 pounds total or 85 per hole? MR. STRAW: Eighty-five per hole. That's what's necessary. That's what you need to actually break that rock in that 20- to 25-foot column that they're that -- they're dealing with and in terms of their excavation. They can't go less, and they're certainly not going to go more. They're trying to fine tune this to reduce vibration as much as they can. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you said they -- they put water in over the top. They don't put any matting or any other type of -- MR. STRAW: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- material to make sure that explosive goes down into the hole and goes sideways? MR. STRAW: That's what the water -- the water actually works as stemming because the stemming -- the water has been found to be as effective as anything else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So in past practices, it has been pretty consistent at 100 pounds per hole? MR. STRAW: Yes. And in the last -- I think in the last few, you know, months they've reduced to 85 because they've found areas where they can do that. I mean, the blaster would love to shoot 100 pounds because he gets more money for it. The operator wants him to use as little as possible. The issue here is trying to find the right ratio, and that's what they've done with the 85 pounds. They can't reduce that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And have you been -- have you done, in the past, 85? MR. STRAW: Yes. They've had -- their last number -- last few shots -- I don't know how far back it goes, but they've been blasting at 85 pounds. That's the way they know it works. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Enough questions for now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. I'm not sure who to direct this to. So two quick questions. One, is the overall vibration effect at the homeowner's site less in Phase 2 than what you're currently doing? And I say that because while you're moving closer to homes but you are reducing the charge, will that seismic detector, wherever, actually see less vibration because of what you're proposing now? MR. STRAW: Yes, because the pounds per delay -- the pounds per hole has been reduced. You know, we're not using the 100. We're going to the 85. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Even though you're moving closer to the home? MR. STRAW: Yes. Because what they have to do then is directionally look at where -- you know, where they are. They may reach a point where they say we've exceeded .2 or we're at the monthly average of .2 and they say we can't go any closer, and they're finished. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Very good. And my last question -- MR. STRAW: I guess, if you understand the vibration limits, it's a speed limit, okay. So we have a speed limit. It doesn't make -- if you're on I-75 out here, it doesn't make any difference whether you have a cement mixer, a Ferrari, or a Volkswagen. If the limit is 55 miles per hour, that's it. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 51 of 102 You know, in this case we have a limit of .2 that we can deal with over that monthly period. We can't go above that. If it gets to the point they're going to be above that all the time, they can't continue to blast. That's -- that's where this goes. That's how definitive that is. And as soon as we start seeing those things, you know, we go back, the operator gets them, the Collier County folks get them. So you have everybody checking that. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. And the last question -- I don't think anyone on the panel -- I may be misspeaking here, but it was brought up by the neighbors. Is there any type of water evaluation, water table, water natural springs underneath evaluation done that is able to be shared with the community of here's what happened 10 years ago? Five years ago? Currently? As we've heard, that entire area gets their drinking water from wells. MR. STRAW: There's two avenues here. One, I'm coauthor on a paper studying the effects of blasting on drilled water wells. There's not an effect on the structure of the well or anything else that we're dealing with here in South Florida. I've done ones where we have really restrictive water flow like a tenth-of-a-gallon type wells, and then we've done where we have -- one where we have what we have in Florida is a lot of water flow, and there's no effect on the well itself. So that's not going to happen. We're not displacing that rock. So the well is fine the way it is. Now, DEP had done studies on the effects of blasting in the Lake Belt region, which is the Miami-Dade quarries. They were doing testing on it. I don't know the results other than I know that there were no chemicals that were coming from the water related to blasting. I mean, they weren't finding anything that was any different. In other words, they were testing a day before the blast, the morning of the blast, and immediately after the blast, and they were not finding any change in the water, because they're in the lakes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Has any of that type or similar testing taken place within your area of operation here? MR. STRAW: I don't know whether that has been done here. I know that they were requiring it across the state for all mining operations like this, but that's outside of what I do for a living. I know the tests in Miami that were done and what they were doing, but I don't -- and I -- here I don't know. I would presume there was some at some point. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Maybe that's something that Mr. Yovanovich could look into for us, if you would, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have the answer, but I will look into it. I mean, we're complying with all permit conditions for the state as well as the county. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And -- because it was brought up by the residents and nowhere had it been mentioned in the petition or in any of our previous conversations, I think it's appropriate to at least find out. Hey, by any chance is there anything adversely affecting the drinking water of these neighbors? And I don't expect you to have the answer, probably won't even have it today, but something that might be able to be presented at the BCC meeting would go a long way for either side. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Actually, Randy covered my question. But a couple of other thoughts I have. It seems to me that -- and based on everything I'm hearing, you guys are really blasting at the amount of blasting that is economically appropriate, and you're using the 85 pounds because that's economically appropriate. So you're locking yourself into that, but you're really already doing both of those things anyway. So one could argue you're not really giving up much. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 52 of 102 And what you're getting in exchange for that is blasting closer to the homes which your expert says is not going to have an effect. But that's -- if I just simplified it, the one thing you're here today -- because you could just withdraw the petition, and, you know, you'd have -- go up to 100 pounds up to eight days, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So the one thing you're asking for is to blast closer? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. I just want to make sure I've got the big picture. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. There's a resource there that is a necessary resource for the citizens of Collier County. It's not being used for this project. It's a resource. And in order to get that resource out at a value that people can afford to pay, we're asking to tap that resource. But we're trying to assure everybody that just because we're getting closer to the boundary of the property, we're not causing harm. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What is the -- I'm looking at the site on here. What is the lifespan of this mine? What is the planned lifespan of this mine operating before we begin to convert it to a residential area? Are we looking at a 10-year sunrise [sic]? Fifteen-year operation? What are we looking at? MR. YOVANOVICH: At the current levels of production, we're talking four to five years. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Four to five. MR. YOVANOVICH: Four to five. Not 45; four to five. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just to rephrase, in Phase 2, if we were to reduce before -- the load under 85, what I heard the expert say is it would not be efficient, or it would not be effective; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think he said it wouldn't be effective. Correct? It will not break -- it won't break the rock. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd like to have that stated on the record. MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your name? MR. BLANKENSHIP: Barry Blankenship. If we use less than 85 pounds, then, instead of breaking the rock up, it leaves it with lots of big boulders which means that's material that just has to be cast aside and can't be used. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or crushed. MR. BLANKENSHIP: Or crushed, because when you take boulder that are the size of this desk or larger, then it takes more energy trying to break that down afterwards. And usually, if you're trying to do that with a hydraulic hammer at that point, it costs more than what you get out of it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'm going to go back. Mr. Yovanovich, you made a statement that you're -- you will commit to notifying homeowners within one mile of the property line? MR. YOVANOVICH: We already have that. That commitment's there, but we're going to let them know 72 hours in advance instead of 24 hours in advance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that will be, what I read, by their text or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a commitment we're adding. It's not there today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that either by text or otherwise? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to send them a letter saying, "How do you want us to communicate to you?" And we will honor their wishes. If they want us to call them, we'll call them. If they want us to e-mail them, we'll e-mail them. If they want us to text them, we'll text them. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 53 of 102 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, what I want in that letter as well is all homeowners within a mile of the property line, not the blast zone, but the property line, so that's a mile perimeter that homeowners will be advised of how they would file an official complaint and to whom and what procedures they would need to follow. It's basically a reiteration of the state policy. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll send them a copy. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just wanted to add on to what Commissioner Sparrazza said. Some of the residents said there's some new water line, sewer lines in the area and question whether there was reason to be concerned. I would ask that you guys be prepared to address that, too, since the question was raised here. I don't know if there's any pipes in the area, but they move when the ground moves. MR. BELLOWS: I will most certainly reach out to Dr. Yilmaz and Mr. McLean with Public Utilities and make them aware so they're able to address that comment with the BCC. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. No one else is signaling at this time, except for Commissioner Vernon. Go ahead, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schmitt, what I've been told is one of the impacts of going from 100 pounds per hole to 85 pounds per hole is the actual resource is 45 feet deep in the ground, but with the reduced charge, we can only go 20 feet deep. So we're leaving with this -- with this change in the amount of pounds per hole, we're not getting all of the resource out of there, and that's what -- that's part of the downside, if you will, of reducing the charge. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm going to make a statement and invite you to challenge that statement. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think it's within my -- I don't want to speak for everybody else, but based on everything I'd heard, depending on how I feel about the testimony on both sides, it's within my discretion here to approve or deny. What do you think? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I disagree. There's the criteria. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Go ahead. Lay it out. MR. YOVANOVICH: The criteria are based upon expert testimony. In order for you to understand the criteria -- it's not a laymen's analysis. The expert testimony, not only our expert but county staff's expert, says we met each of the criteria. If we meet each of the criteria, we are entitled -- it's a quasi-judicial proceeding. It's not legislative. If it was legislative, it's a totally different standard. If there's competent substantial evidence to support our position and that's in the record and there's no competent substantial evidence refuting that, you have to approve it. It's not discretionary. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's Mr. Yovanovich's perspective. You have to look at all the evidence before you. Testimony of personal perceptions and some of those can count. But you're not allowed to deny it based on the vibrations. That we're -- there's case law in the statutes on that, but you can ask for increased setbacks, things like that, if you're not finding compatibility. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That -- let me go back to you. Just do a hypothetical. Let's say I -- and don't anybody take this personally. But I find your -- or applicant's experts to be not credible. Are you saying if there's no opposing testimony under your -- I understand what the county's saying. Are you saying I don't really have the discretion? I need to approve? MR. YOVANOVICH: You'd have to not only find my expert not credible, you'd have to find county staff not credible. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 54 of 102 MR. YOVANOVICH: Now -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think going back to you on -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, hang on one second. Commissioner Vernon, are you finished? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. After -- after that, we'll get you in, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And could you just go over that one more time? I understand you saying -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, I think you can find a lack of compatibility, and based on that you can say we're not recommending approval. COMMISSIONER VERNON: On the setbacks. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, you've heard a lot of testimony on the record, various testimony. So, yeah, I think you can. But that would warrant not allowing them to expand. I mean, they already are operating there. And I don't know how much time they have left on the mine, but they're asking for changes. And I would say that Heidi told you you can't consider vibration, and the people are telling you it's not compatible based upon their feelings about the vibration. They don't have -- they have yet to come and say -- provide any evidence other than anecdotal that they have cracks in their house and they think it's caused by the vibration of the blasting. We have the expert who could talk to you about vibrations and the impacts. So if you're thinking it's not compatible because of vibration, I think that that's not an acceptable determination on your part. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, it seems to me that's a credibility issue. It doesn't seem -- it seems to me I have the right to believe the testimony of 10 people who have testified, and I have the right to discount your expert's testimony. I'm not saying I'm going to. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just saying, as a -- from your perspective as a land-use lawyer, I think -- based on everything I'm hearing, I think I've got some discretion here depending on how I feel about all the evidence. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I'm going to say it's out of line for Rich to tell you that you have to approve it. You have to look at the criteria for conditional use and find out whether or not they have -- if you think that there are adverse overall effects that don't warrant approving it, you can do that. He's not your counsel. It's out of line for him telling you what you should do. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I don't think it's out of line for me to ask him, because I think the more information I have, the better decision I can make. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, no. He's telling you you have to approve it, and that's the part that's out of line. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I know and -- but for example, all three of us are lawyers. If I'm in the courtroom and I ask counsel to tell me what the law is, it doesn't mean I have to agree with him. I've asked him for what the law is, and I really appreciate you giving me the law. But I think -- I want to know what he thinks as well as what you think so I can make the best decision. So don't think I'm just buying what he's telling me. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. He can answer any question that you have -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- but I have heard him say on other occasions as well as now "you have to do this," and he told you "I'm entitled to this." That is not correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, I hear you. You're disputing what he says. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 55 of 102 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. I got it. I got it. I'll just make one more comment, and then I'll turn it over to Klucik, Mr. Klucik. I just want the people on the -- basically on the right side of the room to understand that -- this is just my personal opinion. But I've been doing this for two-and-a-half years now, so I've seen a lot of presentations. I will tell you my perspective. I'm not trying to suggest how I'm going to vote. But my perspective is they are, compared to most applicants, trying to be very good neighbors. That's my impression. I just want to let you know that, because I think I'm asking a lot of challenging questions. I don't want you to get the wrong impression, because I've seen a lot of applicants that are less good neighbors than they seem to be based on everything I've seen. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I guess I would ask both the petitioner as well as our counsel, what is the competent and substantial evidence regarding vibrations? What is all of the competent and substantial evidence regarding vibrations? Because I know we have the testimony of experts. Do we have any other testimony that is competent and substantial regarding the impact of the vibrations or cracks? MR. YOVANOVICH: In my opinion, you do not. You have an expert -- and it requires expert testimony to understand the impacts of vibrations. That -- the only expert that's here that has testified to that, and your own staff have testified to it, we meet the criteria. They have -- they did not put up an expert to say, "They are wrong. It is doing X, Y, and Z as far as creating the vibration, and as a result of that, that's causing the damage." You do not have an expert saying anything refuting, and that's -- the standard is competent substantial evidence. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's my question for our counsel as well, then, is is there any competent and substantial evidence that's -- that is contrary to the expert testimony that we've had? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, I'm going to jump in first and then turn it over to Ms. Ashton because I don't completely agree with Mr. Yovanovich's interpretation of the law here. In my judgment -- excuse me -- the evidence -- the oral testimony that is supplied by these witnesses that they've got vibration or that they've got cracks is evidence. It doesn't have to be expert evidence. They are competent to provide that testimony about their own house. What I'm concerned about is a lack of causal connection between that damage and the actions of this applicant. So having said that, let me turn it over -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. That's my whole point is the -- if I show up and say that I've got, you know, blood on my -- you know, on my clothes, you know, and I'm trying to say that, you know, someone hit me, and if that -- whatever, someone did something to me, and then they're a mile away, and we have expert testimony that there's no way they could have, you know, made my clothes bloody, it's not a denial that, you know, my clothes are bloody. It's a question of whether or not the expert is right that from a mile away they could have bloodied my clothes. And that's -- you know, I know that's -- analogies always suffer. That was one I just made up. But the point is exactly what you said, we have evidence that -- you know, from experts that are sworn about what causes cracks and what kind of damage can be caused at these distances based on this activity, based on what they're asking for in their petition, and then we have evidence in the form of testimony that my house has cracks or, you know, I've heard these loud noises, you know, whatever, the negative impacts. And I think we do have to be careful about what each kind of -- you know, what we can conclude from each type of evidence, and if we don't have evidence that it is caused by what's proposed, then we have to be careful about it. We have to base our voting on not -- on that we feel sorry for people. We have to base it on whether, you know, the petition is in compliance with the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 56 of 102 requirements, basically, based on the expert testimony and anything else before us. But we have to be careful how we weigh what's before us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would like counsel's answer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Counsel. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, you have a couple criteria for conditional uses. The effect on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects, and also the compatibility with adjacent properties. Now, you have multiple activities on this site. Blasting is just one of them. You've got rock crushing and, you know, you engineers can explain it better than I can. But from my perspective, those are all things that are real. Competent substantial evidence, if I'm giving expert opinion, which those are the experts that Mr. Yovanovich has presented for testimony, is one form of substantial competent evidence, but that's not the only. That is for opinion testimony. A layperson can testify. A layperson can testify to something that requires extra education, like I'm testifying how many cars, you know, are on the road and you've got expert transportation experts giving you advice on those things. But a person can say, "I've got damage to my house." I don't think we're a court of law where we're awarding negligence here or anything. We're looking at what is reasonable. And you're -- you know, you're trying to guide the Board and assist them in making a reasonable determination. MR. YOVANOVICH: May I? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry? Yes, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think I disagree with what Heidi said or what you said with regard to what people can testify to. Yeah, they testified that there's vibration, but they have not provided any evidence that what they've experienced was caused by us. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And I don't think they're required to. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe you have standards that are in the code and that are in the law. It says you can't exceed X decibels. It says you can't exceed X inches per -- X inches per second I think is the right standard. Those are all objective standards to be entitled. And I -- we disagree. One of these days we're going to go to court, and we're going to find out who's right. I believe that the standard is competent substantial evidence if I have it in the record. You've got to have competent substantial evidence to say I haven't met my burden. We could debate that all day. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record that says we're the cause of any damage to anybody's home, and I believe -- Mr. Chairman, we're done with public comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I know that, but I'm not interrupting you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And I don't think that's a legal requirement when you're making a subjective determination on whether there are -- whether there's noise, glare, economic, odor effects. Compatibility tends to be one where you do rely more on experts, but I don't know that the staff report has really addressed whether there's compatibility or not under Section 5. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe staff's recommending approval, and the only way they can do that is to say that we satisfied all the criteria. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to address the lady who approached the podium and say, I'm very sorry, but we've closed public comment. MS. GUTIERREZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. We've got Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike, did you want to make a comment before I talk? Your microphone. MR. BOSI: Yeah. In relationship to the staff report and the five criteria that this petition 5.A.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 57 of 102 is evaluated against, we've highlighted the effects of the conditional-use on neighboring properties in relationship to noise, glare, economics, and odor effects compat- -- as one criteria. The other is compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Those are subjective determinations. You're entitled to review the full evidence that was presented and determine what you feel is a compatible or noncompatible use in relationship to the surrounding properties. I understand the expert testimonies and the limits that they're allowed to blast to. But if in your mind that -- the number of houses that have been developed over the course of time since '99, since this original CU was granted approval, has grown to the point where you think that the number -- that the blasting, the crushing, the activities on aren't compatible with those -- if that's the determination that you as an individual are making, not upon specifically expert testimony but the full body of that was presented to you -- so you have a lot of discretion because it's subjective. Unfortunately, it's very gray as to what is compatible and what's not compatible. Staff arrived upon a recommendation of approval because we felt it was compatible, but you're not obligated to follow staff's position as much as you're not obligated to hear the expert testimony and think that that's the only thing that is part of the consideration. So there's a lot of discretion within the conditional-use evaluation process that you're entitled to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree completely, for what it's worth. Anything else, Vice Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do have a question. I'm going to go back to the 85 pounds again. How did you arrive at that figure? Were there test blasts conducted, and was 85 deemed to be the optimal? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I believe that's the case. The blasts -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I have your expert testimony, your expert? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just so everybody understands, even though we've closed the public comment, we as Planning Commissioners can always ask for someone else to come up and talk at any time. That's our prerogative. Go ahead, sir. MR. BLANKENSHIP: Barry Blankenship, Quality Enterprise USA. We were asked to look and evaluate what could we do to lower the vibrations in any way. Lowering the number of pounds per hole was one of those variables that we had the option to exercise. When we got to 85, anything below that, then we start producing more boulders. And like I said, that's material that we can't utilize, can't screen, crush, et cetera, at a reasonable value. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For clarification, you did run test shots, and this was -- MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- deemed to be the optimal? MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I ask Jeff to come up again, please? Because I want to ask him a question. Jeff, you appear to be the expert at least on the explosive. What kind of explosive is in the hole? What -- is it a slurry mix, you said? MR. STRAW: It's a -- this one is an emulsion. They're the same, virtually, when you look at them. It is an ammonium nitrate, but min- -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it is ammonium nitrate? MR. STRAW: It's ammonium nitrate, but it is a mineral oil with other base chemicals that are used. And it's a pumpable product. That's why I'm saying it's a mix. You know, they pump it through a bulk truck. They bring it in. It's an oxidizer, so it's a semi-liquid-looking paste. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My recollection, ammonium nitrate is not a very fast explosive like C4. MR. STRAW: No, not in any way, shape, or form. This is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 58 of 102 MR. STRAW: This is where we differ with your Army training. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. STRAW: And it is quite -- it is quite different. The only thing in the hole that's the same would be the blasting cap and the booster. Those are high P-E-E-T-N type of explosives, and those are to get this other -- to produce the pressure to produce this other material to detonate -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. STRAW: -- and produce the gases. We want a slower burning material in this so that it produces more gas. The idea is to produce the gas, go sideways into the existing cracks of the rock and fragment that, and then as those widen -- you know, if you have a series of cracks, the gas goes into them, and as they widen, you get more gas forced into there. And sooner or later, when that stops breaking, then the material stops moving, it heaves upward a little bit, but that's where that waste energy then becomes the ground vibration. It's, like, 95 to 96 percent of the energy goes into breaking and fragmenting the rock. That last little bit is what we measure as vibration. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On your seismic detectors -- and you mentioned that they're in the sand. Of course, sand does not carry a vibration as far as solid rock does or rock. MR. STRAW: You're not going to get it here because, remember, we're dealing with saturated soils. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. STRAW: So this is a little different than, you know, just a rock layer. This is -- this is not, say, the Carolinas where you have, you know, solid limestone layers, and you can -- I'm sure you've seen those, you know, in your experience. This is rock, sand interlaced with -- all of this is saturated conditions. So between all of that, it carries -- it transmits energy uniformly and it -- you know, other than some cracks and things that are different, it goes out in a radius like I talked about the rock in a pond kind of thing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. MR. STRAW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I'm glad I'm not an attorney -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm glad I'm not an engineer. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- because I don't get hung up on those things. We're into a discussion over theory versus actual, and we don't -- and we don't know the cause, but we know something's going on. You could probably verify it by finding communities twice as far away of similar age and inspecting their buildings and seeing if they have similar cracks. That would probably be a good argument. So I think I like the idea of you reducing the criteria even -- why don't we do that and not extend the blast area; reduce the criteria for a year and see what happens. I know the theory says what's going to happen, but obviously there's some -- potentially a disconnect between the theory and the actual. But try the reduced blast requirements for a year and see what happens. And then come back and talk to us about expanding the blast area. I can tell Rich is really excited. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He has no appetite for this at all. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. And, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment, Mr. Yovanovich. Again, I apologize, but the public comment portion has concluded. It's possible, but probably not likely, since there are no experts on the other side, that we would call be somebody up. But it's really not likely. Again, forgive me, but those are the rules. Go ahead, sir, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, and I appreciate what you're saying, Mr. Shea, but, you know, we have -- we have experts who do this and know what they're doing, and they are 5.A.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 59 of 102 telling you that expanding this into the yellow area with the criteria we are agreeing to is not going to cause problems for our neighbors. It will be just like it is today is essentially what they're saying. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And there are no problems right now? MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm saying is we have had -- Barry's had six people complain. There's a process. Everybody, I'm sure -- and I probably would think the same thing. I felt a vibration, I got a crack, it's got to be the vibration, but that doesn't mean it's right. That's what Jeff's here to tell you. Here's what the building code says and how it's designed, and here's what all these tests have shown, that you have to hit a certain threshold before we cause the damage they're saying they're experiencing. It's a science. He's the scientist. He's been doing this for I think he said 43 years, that's a long time, and that analysis has been done for 45 years before him. So we're going to be in the same place we are in a year, and you're going to go through another public-hearing process. And maybe I could be way more efficient by just keeping the higher charge, more holes, and go deeper for that one year, I mean, and stay within the parameters. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm getting signaled from someone in the back, and I have to repeat myself, sir. It's unfortunate, but the public's speaking time has concluded. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I do have an expert witness on site here today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, but it would be up to us to invite that person to speak. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: He's sitting right there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He had the opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything further? Commissioner Vernon, go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just -- I don't know. I'm just ready, kind of, to give some comments. And I looked at my -- the transcript, and I think I was the last one to talk before the chairman at the November hearing when you guys postponed. I said, you've got an applicant trying to be a good neighbor, which I repeated here today on the -- and then I said, I'd rather see something that the neighbors think is good and the applicant is thinking [sic] good rather than a bunch of numbers which are different than the boots on the ground. So I'm kind of at the same place I was before. And this is a tough one. This is a tough one. I do agree with Heidi. I listened to you. I listened to Heidi. I agree with Heidi, and I agree with Mike. You know, these 10 people were all under oath. We've got two engineers up here. I think that I can -- and I've heard testimony -- maybe I heard it different. But I heard testimony amongst some of them that it wasn't there before the blast. It was there after the blast. So that's competent and substantial evidence that I can weigh against experts. And with respect to the staff, I usually rely very heavily on the staff. But I think Mike said it well, I mean, they're kind of a barrier to entry. If they were the final word, you don't need us. You don't need engineers on the panel or people with those kind of skills. So I -- I think it is our discretion whether we approve or not. I think that they are currently doing what is economic -- I think they're being good neighbors, but I think right now they're blasting on the number of days and the number of holes and the amount of the charge based on economics. So if you told them to go away, unless they're being spiteful, they're going to -- they're already doing this. They're not at 100. They're at 85 because it saves them money. So they're there. I mean, they're asking to get closer. And this is a really close call. And I usually -- and the reason we get into -- I get into the law as a lawyer is because I want the public and I want Rich to have some consistency on what this board does. And from day one, I don't know what the heck quasi-judicial means, but it's not a court of law but, yet, there is some parameters. I don't believe these folks have to prove causation beyond preponderance -- whatever. I 5.A.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 60 of 102 find their testimony credible. It's collectively consistent. Arguably, Mr. Garcia probably could be qualified as an expert. He didn't. But he's -- you know, he brought something to the table last time. I think I highlighted his testimony last time. I remember it. So I'm going to vote against it. And I'm really struggling with this one because I do think, Rich, your clients are being very good neighbors, and I don't think you're -- I really -- I wish you guys could get together and work it out, but I just don't see that happening. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I correct one of your factual statements? We were doing 100. We reduced it to 85 after meeting with the neighbors. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Fair comment. And the reason I said what I said is because Barry says you have to pay for explosives, and the more explosives you get, the more expensive it is. And the 85 seems to work, so maybe you should thank your neighbors for saying, why don't we go with 85; you guys will make more money, and it will still be effective. So I don't think you're going to go back to 100. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we will, because that will be -- because we need to get enough material from each of the holes, and you're going to force us to stay where we are, and we'll just go with more holes and a higher charge. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, if that is correct then, again, I go back to pointing out that these folks seem to -- this applicant seems to be trying to be a good neighbor. And, Mr. Dixon, maybe you know -- I don't know. Maybe you can realize he's going to be back at 100, and it might get worse. And so I wish you two had gotten together. And it's a close call. But I'm going to vote against it. I just want to let everybody know where I'm coming from. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I have just one question for Mr. Sawyer, if he could -- if I could -- Mike, I don't know if you were in the room -- and while you're walking you can think about it -- I asked about the dollar per truck per day, but I don't know if I really got a sufficient answer. If I recall, 15 years ago, 18 years ago it was $1 per truck per day. And are you, as staff, satisfied? You signed off on it, $1 per truckload per day as the impact? MR. SAWYER: Yeah. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. The existing staff that we have with Transportation Planning wasn't around 15 years ago, quite honestly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: I think I may have, quite honestly, reviewed this project from a landscaping standpoint originally. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Landscape. MR. SAWYER: But that being said, it is an existing condition. You -- you asked for a rational nexus for this. What I can easily bring to the front of that is -- is we have toll roads, okay, and those are charged on the basis of the size and the type of vehicle. I don't believe that this is all that much different than that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Let me rephrase then. The money you've collected in the past for the same condition has substantial -- or has met the -- any requirements for road repair. So you've not -- you don't believe that there's anything warranted to raise the fee? MR. SAWYER: At this time, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You answered my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. At this point, no one is signaling. Mr. Yovanovich, anything further on rebuttal? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. I appreciate this is a hard call, and there's ramifications either way. There's the opportunity to lower the charge, get the material at a less depth. It's an important resource in Collier County, and when resource runs out, you're bringing more trucks in from other locations at a greater expense. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 61 of 102 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. So the matter is now in our hands for deliberation and motion. Who would like to speak or move? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I think I'll start, then, hearing silence. Unfortunately, my experience in -- a 40-pound shaped charge or 40-pound cratering charge of ammonium nitrate makes a lot of noise and a lot of -- but that's my experience, shaped charges, C4, cratering charges. So I'm not an expert in mining. And I saw the film. And it is synchronized, and it is timed. I do have great compassion for the folks who are experiencing the problem, but I do appreciate also the applicant who took it upon themselves to evaluate to find the optimum solution at 85, reduce the number of holes. I am torn because I've heard the citizens speak, but I -- again, it's that connectivity. Yes, they've experienced it, but I have not been convinced other than the experience they say, well, it wasn't there before but it is now. But I've got to have substantial evidence to convince me that the blasting caused the damage. So based on that, I am going to make a recommendation of approval of this conditional use, that they will stay at the -- they will go to the 85 or stay at the 85, reduce the number of holes, that they will advise all -- they will advise everybody within a mile of the mine of the blasting, the days it will take place, and ask for how they want to be notified the day of the blast. And in that application -- or in that notice will also include any procedures and define procedures in how they would either register a complaint. Of course, they can always contact their commissioner. For folks out there, you all know we're volunteers. We're appointed to this position based on at least our experience, and we're -- we are citizens appointed by the commissioners. Your elected officials, again, are the ones that are going to make the final decision. You would make a complaint to them if you believe anything's gone wrong. And -- but I would advise that you either advise them to contact their commissioner or through the -- go through the state process. So with that, I recommend approval as -- based on the stipulations, and also the increase in the bond to a million dollars. Yes? MR. BOSI: And maybe -- the Chair was going to add the retirement of the excavation areas as they go along on an annual basis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask the movant if he would permit me. I've got a list of five. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then we'll -- if it's agreeable with the movant, we'll ask for a second. And are you going to want to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I was going to make sure you had them all, because if -- I want to make sure everything I committed to gets on there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's -- yeah. And I don't think this needs to come back on consent, but there are sufficient language issues that it might be useful, and I defer to the Planning Commission to delegate to me the authority to review the final language. I'm not saying it's necessary, but it's something to be considered. In any event, the conditions that I believe I've got here, No. 1, that the applicant will surrender or relinquish immediately square footage no longer being blasted and, going forward, will continue to surrender or relinquish as blasting is continued -- is discontinued. That's No. 1. Number 2, the $1 million bond -- the 500,000 will be upped to a million, and it would have to be replenished if it's used. Number 3, that there would be -- the blasting will be directed away from the residences. Number 4, 72 hours' notice to persons within a mile. Number 5, 100 pounds reduced to 85-pound charge per hole. Did I get that right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You got it right. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, you missed the number of holes and you missed -- and we reduced the berm around the equipment from six months to 90 days. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 62 of 102 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Number of holes reduced from 1680 down to 1320. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 1680 holes to 1920? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Yovanovich, are there any -- MR. YOVANOVICH: 1320. You went the wrong way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 1320. What was the other one? MR. YOVANOVICH: We reduced the -- originally, we had six months to put a berm around equipment if the attenuation wasn't working. We've reduced that to now do the berm within 90 days. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's everything. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have one last question. In regards to when they blast, other than yelling "fire in the hole," is there any audible sound, siren or any other thing that goes on? I don't think people could hear it a mile away. Just for the record, state your name again. MR. BLANKENSHIP: Barry Blankenship, Quality Enterprises USA. Yes. According to the fire marshal's rules, before the blast, there is a loud blast with an air horn that is on site both at the -- before the countdown and then at the all clear. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No. I have a -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go. Point of information? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I would like to make a suggestion, not a condition for this. But as we talked earlier, if there is any way that a sample of drinkable water, potable water is available and that a couple of tests could be run before the BCC meeting to remove any conditions or problems that the residents may have, I think it would be a great education for both parties. It's a suggestion. I don't want to make it a stipulation. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're happy to do that, and maybe some of the people who are here will allow us to grab samples from their wells. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Working together in communications between the petition [sic] and the neighborhood is, I think, all of our goal. Yes, thank you for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So let's go ahead and make that a condition. Well water samples. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Recommendation or is condition too strong? It's never been -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not for me, particularly because the applicant's willing to do it. Let's not leave money on the table here. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Movant, do you accept that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I've got eight conditions. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do we have discussion before we vote? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we do. And one of the things I'd like to discuss is whether we believe this needs to come back on consent or whether the Planning Commission wants me to review it or whether neither is needed. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we keep that till later? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Later? COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's a procedural thing. I'm still up for discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, you want to discuss on the substance of it. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I don't support that at all. I still get hung up on the fact that we have existing conditions, and I think it was Mr. Garcia said, it doesn't make any sense to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 63 of 102 expand the blast area. I realize you're reducing the potential impacts while you're increasing the area. And I don't think the burden of proof is on the residents to prove that the damage to their house was caused -- wasn't -- or was caused by yours, your blasting. I think you should do more homework. I'm probably going to lose my -- the vote, but I would try and do some more homework and look at these things and say, you know, all the houses 10 miles away have this same kind of damage. I have the crack in the slab. I'm nowheres near blasting. I take the carpet off, 20 years later I have a big crack in the slab. So I think you need to do more homework to prove that it wasn't, whereas you're saying they need to get an expert to prove that the cracks were caused. Based on that, I'm going to vote against it. I think -- I think there needs -- you need to do more homework to convince me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I've got an opinion -- but I'm not going to express it now -- having to do with how the burden of going forward probably shifts, but where this -- we're not going to resolve that. So we've got a motion. And was there a second? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I already did. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But I also wanted to say that I don't think that -- I don't think it's good for us to -- you know, we are a quasi-judicial body, and I think that's a legitimate thing. It's not unique to Collier County or Florida. We're quasi-judicial, and it's very simple what that means. It means that we assess the facts -- we're fact finders -- and then we apply the law to those facts. When things are legislative, we just vote how we feel like voting. When we add quasi-judicially, we are fact finders, and we apply the law to those facts. And it's real simple, and I think that it's important for the public to know that there is a distinction, and it's a real distinction. And, you know, here is a question of what are the facts that we weigh and how much weight do we give them, which is always what fact finders, you know, have to contend with. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, I agree with everything you said with one exception. I think -- I don't think we can act in an arbitrary and capricious manner on the legislative side. But, otherwise, I agree with the way you stated this. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No, I'm concluded. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Vernon, are you concluded? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just a couple of comments, because I've already sort of stated my thought process. The only thing I'd say is, you know, Mr. Dixon, I'm not sure it's going to change anything at this point, but you seem to be the quasi leader of your group, and you might want to reach out to the other side in a collaborative way and see if, you know -- because, again, I get the impression they're trying to be good neighbors. So I don't know if anything can be done, but I would recommend that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. So at this point no one is signaling, and we've got a motion, and it's been seconded. I want to weigh in where I'm going to come down on this, and I completely understand the issues that have been raised by the neighbors, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if I were in their shoes I'd be sitting in that seat and wanting to be heard. And I think they were heard, and I think they made a good case for the existence of cracks and the existence of tremors. So, you know, they as homeowners are competent to give that testimony, but what I did not hear -- and Commissioner Vernon, I think, believes he did, and so maybe I am wrong, but I did not hear anybody offer anything that caught me as evidence of causation. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 64 of 102 And I asked the question specifically about the proximity of other blasters. And, you know, the fact that there are other blasters, even though they only blast occasionally, raises a concern on my part that we can't necessarily ascribe all fault on this particular applicant. And I do believe that sufficient evidence was brought forward by the applicant's expert. And, you know, although the homeowners testified within their competence as to what has happened, causation is a piece that I really needed to find for them. So I will be voting in favor of this application subject to the eight conditions that have been announced. And I hear other people on the substance of this, but I would still like the Planning Commission to weigh in on how we verify faithfulness of the conditions to our discussion. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'll just say I'm fine with you looking at it. Is that what you're saying, the conditions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, if that's what the Planning Commission wants. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's fine with me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine with me. I ask that staff validates and substantiate, then the Chair will coordinate with staff. I don't think -- I don't think it needs to come back. These are very clear. The petitioner has concurred, and they're very clear stipulations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. All right. Anybody else want to be heard on this at all before we vote? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we'll close discussion. All those in favor of the motion to approve the CUA with the eight conditions, please say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it passes 4-2, I believe. I think I got that right. Yeah. 4-2, Mr. Bosi, is that what you -- MR. BOSI: That's what I heard. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So it passes 4-2. Thank you, applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I make a statement, though? For the public, it's a split decision. You need to understand it will be full open public hearing at the Board of County Commissioner meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I add to that? You need -- if you're having trouble getting information out, numbers are very important. I would suggest now that you know what's going on, you spread the word so we can get more -- more input, the commissioners can have more input. And any homework -- you've heard some of the things that we struggle over. Any homework you -- because the commissioners are going to struggle over it the same as we do, but they have the vote. We're advisory. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And my heartfelt thanks to the members of the public who took time out of their day to come and speak. And the kindly gentleman who apologized for becoming a little emotional, apologies accepted completely, and thank you for being here, sir. And with that, it's -- we're very close to time, believe it or not, for another pause. And as we consider this, I want to say, just -- oh, Commissioner Vernon, did you want to -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I didn't want to interrupt you, but before you break, I just had something to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Sure. I'm going to need to be refueled at some point 5.A.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 65 of 102 before I go too much further. I can go somewhat further, but not, perhaps, the whole distance, because we've got two more matters, and I've got extensive questions on the one coming up, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I have a lot on the other one coming up, so there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And in fairness to Mr. Mulhere and his client, you know, perhaps we should take our lunch break now, or we may end up having to surrender and say I can't do anything further. And speaking not for -- only for myself, but the court reporter who is going to -- may need to be refueled as well, and some of us up here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thirty minutes? CHAIRMAN FRYER: What do you want to do at this point? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: May I suggest 30 minutes for all parties? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, here's one thing I need to know from staff. This cafeteria, it's closed now, isn't it? They close at some point. Maybe 2. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director. I believe they're open till 2 in terms of serving food. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anyone here know the answer to that question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, because I brought my lunch. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I didn't. All right. Well, let's do this. And Mr. Mulhere, without objection from you, sir, at least this will give you the continuity. MR. MULHERE: We'd much prefer to have a happy chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, okay. All right. It seems to be the consensus that -- go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I've got a problem, because I misjudged, and I thought that this would not go past 2, so I've got to leave, and I don't want to screw up a quorum for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'd still have a quorum of five, and -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Klucik's okay? CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it's still okay because we've got four people physically present. COMMISISONER VERNON: Okay. Great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that won't screw anything up, except we'll lose your wisdom. COMMISISONER VERNON: Well, I'm really leaving because I don't like losing, so I'm taking my ball and going home. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. And that's okay with you, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So let's -- we're going to go in recess, a lunch recess, until 2 p.m. That's, what, 38 minutes? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thirty-seven and a half. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we're in recess. (A luncheon recess was had from 1:23 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.) (Commissioner Vernon is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Let's reconvene, please. ***And we're going to call the next matter. It's companions. They are PL20230002460, the GMA Commercial Subdistrict Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and PL20230002458, the GMA CPUDZ. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. 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? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 66 of 102 Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with the secretary. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In my case, matters of public record, meetings with staff, communications with the applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had a video conference with Bob Mulhere, and I did speak to Russ Weyer about some questions I had. And just for the record, I do know Mr. Saadeh, who is the owner of the property. I mean, I've known Mr. Saadeh for years when he was in the Vineyards, so I -- just for the record, I do know him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't think that will have any impact on the vote, but I do know him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Is Mr. Klucik still with us? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Robb? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. Mr. Klucik, are you still there? (No response.) MR. MULHERE: Hopefully he comes back. It's getting to be rather low numbers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, we still have a quorum. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got him? Okay. So Mr. Klucik is present. So with that, turn the floor over to Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Bob Mulhere representing the applicant, GMA Advisors, LLC. My client is Michel Saadeh, who's sitting here right behind me. I will mention that, I don't know, quite a few years ago he was a member of this august and esteemed body. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, he was. MR. MULHERE: Norm Trebilcock, who sent Gavin Jones here, whom I don't see, did the transportation analysis. I'm sure he'll be back. Maybe he was, you know, late getting back from lunch. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's here, yep. MR. MULHERE: And we had Nicholas Pearson from Turrell, Hall & Associates do the native vegetation environmental analysis. There really are no issues. I don't believe he's here. And Jeremy works with me, and he's not here today. No sense double-billing the applicant. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So the subject property is outlined before you on the visualizer. I do want to point out that I saw that most of the exhibits had changed, but there was still one exhibit that showed a portion of the project -- here it is right here -- a portion of the project. Right here is basically part of this parcel, but it is -- it was -- it was never conveyed to the county but, of course, the county owned this parcel. So going through the process, the GMP excludes that strip that's part of this process, the legal description excludes it. So what you see before you is the actual geographic area that's the subject of these two petitions. And although there may have been one or two exhibits in the staff report, which we had revised that show that, I just want to make it clear for the record that's not part of the application. This is a wider aerial. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to have to interrupt you for a moment, Mr. Mulhere, with apologies. MR. MULHERE: That's all right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This has to do with the last project. I have a reference that on Page 8 of 9 of the staff report in the last project that no EAC review is required -- was required. Is 5.A.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 67 of 102 that -- am I wrong? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The staff report identifies there was. I had a note, and I failed to include that in my motion. MR. BOSI: Yes. That -- Mike Bosi, zoning director. That's on me. I failed to mention it to you. I did get an IM from Ms. Cook that EAC was required. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, that -- then that contradicts what was in the staff report. So, County Attorney, can we reopen that and vote? What do we do? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As to the EAC? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You don't have everybody here, do you? Well, you can do it with the group that you have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got a quorum. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. You can go ahead and take a vote on that one as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'd entertain a motion that -- and this goes back to the last matter, and I'd entertain a motion to approve it sitting as the EAC. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We voted on it. How does that affect our vote? Can you vote against the petition and for this, or do you have to -- is there an inconsistency? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You're the same board, but you're actually sitting as two boards. So you're sitting as the Planning Commission, the land planning agency, which you already took the vote on, and you're also sitting as the Environmental Advisory Committee, which is a separate board. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You can vote from the environmental side for it, but against the petition? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can do whatever we want, pretty much. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In spite of what Mr. Yovanovich says. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm being a lawyer now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. I'm not being an engineer, though. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just as clarification, we don't have Mr. Vernon. Does that -- and he voted originally. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I need to make that record. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, that's okay. We'll just reflect that in the minutes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. The record will show that Mr. Vernon had to leave before our lunch break, so we are at a quorum with four physically present and one on the phone. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I second the motion with the statement that all environmental concerns have to be met either through the state or through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 68 of 102 Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: That's all right. No problem. I'm glad someone figured that one out. So this -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman did. MR. MULHERE: This aerial that's on the visualizer right now shows a larger perspective to -- the subject property is right here, and to the west is Wilson. You go around the Immokalee curve here, and you have the Immokalee Curve PUD and the BCHDI -- or 1 PUD, which is up in this area. This is Orangetree PUD which is developed with a small Publix and a CVS and a few other commercial uses. Further to the east is Orange Blossom Ranch, which also has just received approval for almost a 12-acre site for another Publix because this one is undersized. So it's just down the road, but there will be two Publixes there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob, while you've got this up, I'll interrupt. At that -- the PUD to the north, where it's showing, of course, land is cleared. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that now going to be converted to residential? MR. MULHERE: I believe -- these are both mixed-use, but I believe what you see there will be commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Will be commercial, okay. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I could be wrong, but I do know that -- for example, I'll just tell you, Randall Curve allows up to 150,000 square feet of commercial retail. MR. BOSI: And they are developing a multifamily facility at the Randall Curve PUD. MR. MULHERE: So it is mixed use? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is mixed use. So it's going to be multifamily? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. MULHERE: And the Barron Collier BCHD1 is approved for up to 230,000 square feet of commercial. So I'm going to go over those as part of my presentation. I did -- let's see. Was there something else I wanted to point out? I think that's about it. We can go back to this if necessary. So we're asking for two companion petitions, a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment to allow up to 150,000 square feet of C-3 commercial intermediate uses. You know, that's basically your neighborhood commercial designation, and -- of which up to 80,000 may be self-storage, and a PUD is the companion item. I do want to talk a little bit about the history here. The center parcel -- and I'll just go back to that aerial real quick. This parcel right here is the subject known -- it's a stormwater pond, county stormwater pond, for drainage from Immokalee Road. There was an agreement approved by the Board between this applicant and the county to allow for a swap of this parcel right here, which is a little bit larger than three acres, to this parcel here, which is larger -- a little bit larger than five acres. As part of that agreement, the applicant is required to construct a wet detention pond on that new parcel to the south, adjacent to the canal and to extend the pipes -- there's pipes that go under Immokalee Road from that canal on the other side of Immokalee Road -- to extend those to deliver that stormwater to that new location. That's all at Mr. Saadeh's cost. It's no insignificant cost. I will point out that while that's not part of your consideration for a rezone, at the time that that agreement was approved, it was certainly known that the applicant didn't enter into this agreement with the idea of developing one single-family Estate lot on that swap parcel, considering the cost and the location. This graphic shows you, you know, here's the canal on the other side. The water runs down. Here, right now, it connects to this dry retention area right here but will be piped down to this new larger wet retention area. The county originally initiated a discussion about the swap, and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 69 of 102 it went on -- I don't know. It took quite a while to get to the point where it was approved. And I think the county appreciated the fact that they had greater capacity in the new pond area than they do in the existing one. And, again, digging the pond and extending the pipes is Mr. Saadeh's responsibility. Did you want to come up and say anything? I apologize. I was going to introduce you. MR. SAADEH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Michel Saadeh for the record. I've been a full-time resident of Collier County for over 38 years. Where Commissioner Schmitt and I know each other was back when I was the former CEO of Vineyards Development Corporation. So we've developed multiple sites in Naples over the last 38 years. This property -- this came about very quickly about -- very casual discussions with county staff about the expansion of Immokalee Road and their need not just for extra retention for the county, but the county needed a discharge point which they didn't have. So I own the parcels south of where the pond is drawn now. It's over five acres, and the county parcel is just shy of three acres with the easements that are taken out. So we offered to make the swap, and then the county came back and renegotiated the wet retention. We offered to make the swap and give them discharge on the area, and then they said, while you're at it, if you throw in the wet retention, it's a no-brainer, and we'll all go for it, so that's how the whole deal came about. So we took it back to the Board. The Board approved the swap. And once this is concluded, we will turn over five acres after the improvements are done and the utilities are run to that site. And, again, the most important thing, other than the size -- almost doubling the size of the county property, we're giving them a discharge into the canal that the county didn't have. And that's not direly needed today, but it's direly needed when they start the expansion of Immokalee Road and want to expand the road and so forth, and that's going to alleviate some of the transportation problems that you've been hearing about. And thank you for your time. MR. MULHERE: So just to specify, that discharge is depicted here into this canal. So that -- you know, they didn't have a discharge from there, so now we will; right here. This is the Future Land Use Map. The subject property is outlined in -- it looks like purple to me or blue, and surrounded by -- predominately surrounded by Golden Gate Estates zoning. The other chunk of light tan colored is the settlement area, the -- you know, when you drive out towards Immokalee and you go past where Orange Blossom Ranch and some other development -- significant amount of development -- I think this is four sections of land. It was a settlement between the state and the landowner probably in the '70s. Quite a while ago. This exhibit shows the zoning and also shows the nearby commercial zoning. We have a small PUD here and here. There is a comprehensive -- excuse me -- a Growth Management subdistrict that runs along here and includes about 360,000 square feet total of commercial, but that hasn't gone through the zoning yet. You can see that most of that is still zoned Estates. Over here is commercial portions of Orangetree, and then a little bit further to the east is Orange Blossom Ranch, you have the Randall Curve, and north of that, BCHD PUD. This is the county's PUD map. It shows you a little wider depiction of this area. BCHD CPUD, Randall Curve MPUD, and if I had looked at that, I would have known it was mixed use, and the subject property's right here in these two smaller PUDs. And this is the PUD master plan. As I mentioned, it does not include this piece in the middle that extends into the county's right-of-way. This is the TIS. The p.m. peak-hour trips are calculated at 389 p.m. peak hour two-way trips. I do want to spend just a couple of minutes talking about the needs analysis. Russ Weyer is here, and he will probably have to answer any detailed questions. I know there are some, but I do want to talk just a few minutes on the data and analysis that's required. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 70 of 102 And before I go to that, just let me mention, I know you've heard this before, but I want to reiterate that other than maybe a regional attraction, commercial zoning doesn't generate new trips. No one is going to drive here from Marco Island to go to a fast food or to a retail store unless they're driving by. It doesn't generate new trips. It changes the driving pattern of the people that live in that area who had to take different routes before there was commercial opportunities and can now utilize the new commercial that gets approved. So I just want to reiterate. I know there's been a lot of discussion about growth. Commercial, unless it's regional or a big attraction, does not generate new trips. It does change traffic patterns. I want to talk for a minute about Growth Management Plan amendment -- this is a small-scale amendment; it's under 50 acres -- and the statute, state statute and what's required. So Chapter 163.3177, required in optional elements of the Comprehensive Plan studies and surveys. Comprehensive Plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly balance, future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects the community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. All mandatory and optional elements of the Comprehensive Plan shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources, the application of the methodology utilized in data collection, or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated; however, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. It's right from the statute. Then we talk about what are the considerations that we have to address and that staff would evaluate and that you have to evaluate as it relates to a -- in this case, again, a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Future Land Use Plan and plan amendment shall be based on surveys, studies, and data regarding the area as applicable, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth, the permanent -- the projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. These are not weighted. These are individual criterias. The character of the undeveloped land, the availability of public services; water, sewer, and so on. The need for redevelopment, including renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. That really doesn't apply here. The discouragement of urban sprawl. To me that does apply here, and I'll discuss that just a little bit further. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within an antiquated subdivision. So Golden Gate Estates is considered an antiquated subdivision. That's not a derogatory comment. It's simply a fact. Why is that the case? Because it was approved and developed many years ago with very low density, single-family development, one unit per two-and-a-quarter acres with no services. No services. So we've seen a change in that over time. It's been slow, but it has occurred. And this area, although not specifically designated as such, in this area I think this area functions now more as an activity center, mixed-use activity center, than what it was originally proposed to be. Don't forget you have thousands of homes in that settlement area which is immediately north and east of this project, and thousands of Golden Gate Estate lots. So by providing other uses other than low-density, single-family, one lot per two-and-a-quarter acres, that the nearby residents and motoring traffic passing by can avail themselves of is a retroactive change which reduces the impact of sprawl, one impact anyway. What is one impact of sprawl? All those people had to drive west to get any services. They used to all shop at Pebblebrooke. Now they have a Publix. That Publix isn't big enough, so now they're building another Publix. So things are changing, and that is changing the way people drive. There's also 5.A.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 71 of 102 employment opportunities that can be associated with nonresidential uses. So there are big benefits to this. I want to just point out one other -- can you put that on the visualizer? So this is from the preliminary intersection improvement analysis that was done and planned that was done for the intersection of Randall -- sorry -- for the intersection of Randall and Immokalee, which you know is basically a T intersection. The plan on the left is the preferred alternative Phase 1 which has, you know, triple lefts coming out of Randall onto Immokalee, and at this point it looks like just a single right turn heading out of Randall if you want to head east on Immokalee, and you can see that there were some special designs that had to occur to provide access to the commercial properties that are south of this -- of Randall because, you know, obviously, the county doesn't want to have a bunch of access points on this new widened Randall Road. So access comes primarily -- primarily from the signalization at 8th and Randall, which is just east of here. And there is, again, a pretty significant commercial PUD that runs east and west in this area that will benefit from that signal. But the second preferred alternative is Phase 2, which calls for a flyover, and I think you can see on the visualizer the -- you know, by the shading that they've provided that that's going to be an elevated three-lane roadway for -- this is basically sort of almost sort of south but moving into westbound traffic from Randall heading west on Immokalee Road towards the urban area. And there will be right turns, and other turning movements will be at grade along Immokalee, but this -- this elevated section will allow free-flowing traffic heading west from Randall down Immokalee and, also, there are at least double rights heading eastbound on Immokalee to access Randall, and you can see that, and then there's some through lanes, and then there's some intersection turn lanes that are, you know, to the left. There's 4th Street Northeast. It's a little shaded, but it's right where that proposed signal is. I raise this because, ultimately -- and you can see that this elevated roadway goes beyond the perimeter to the west of this exhibit and extends in an elevated but coming-down-to-grade fashion in and around the subject property. And so we're going to have a major intersection with an elevated roadway with numerous through, right- and left-turn lanes adjacent -- and the subject property is adjacent to the canal and commercial. And so the question is -- and it's part of the evaluation in my opinion -- is this really appropriate for single-family homes? I don't think so. Now, let's talk about the amount of commercial that Russ can answer specific questions on. I think it's in and around 4 million square feet in a five-mile radius. You know, I've looked at some of those PUDs. Things do change. Let's talk about the one that was the subject of your previous petition, the Immokalee Road Rural Village. I guess it's basically a subdistrict, GMP area. They have a choice there. They can come in and do a village, or they can just do a residential development. Now, as far as I know -- I'm not working on that project. I do not know if they've made a choice. But if they don't develop a village, and come in for a 2,000-unit residential development, that's 363,000 square feet that will not get built. Things change. That's why you have more commercial square footage than you may think you need or that is acuented [sic] by any study. Orange Blossom Ranch to the east just recently amended that PUD to eliminate some commercial square footage and has now, I believe, an approved SDP for a 400-unit apartment. They also have an approved SDP for the Publix that I talked about. That's 65,000 square feet, that SDP. So there's about nine acres that's undeveloped that could be developed for commercial in that project. They have 230,000 -- I'm not sure. I've got to -- I've got to look at my notes here. Orange Blossom Ranch has 200,000 square feet approved. They've just taken a big chunk of that out because they're building multifamily. Is 200,000 square feet going to get approved 5.A.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 72 of 102 out -- developed out there? No, not unless they do self-storage or multistory office. Don't see a market for that. Don't think that's going to get built. So you have 200,000 square feet. They might build 150-. I talked about the subdistrict. Let's see if I can find it. Well, this is probably as good an exhibit as any. Let me go back -- yeah, thank you. So there is a subdistrict that exists right here and here, and that subdistrict, which fronts on -- I'm sorry. It goes this way. It goes this way. I apologize -- fronts on Randall presently allow -- and, again, they haven't gone through the zoning for most of it. It's still zoned Estates. We're working with Mike Bosi and the county to amend their Growth Management Plan to allow for residential -- to allow for mixed use to allow for residential -- multifamily residential there. Now, I'm not prejudging that application. You'll see it, and the Board will see it. But if it gets approved, a portion of that's going to be developed with residential, which is going to reduce the 300- and I think 60,000 square feet of commercial that presently is counted in the market study for that. So, again, if you add that up, right there that's 6-, 700,000 square feet. I'd venture to say that most projects -- most projects don't net out more -- we use 10,000 square feet as a rule of thumb for development area for neighborhood commercial. What drives that number? Area you have to dedicate to stormwater, area you have to dedicate to buffers -- landscape buffers and open space, and parking. So, really, it depends on the mix of the use. Most smaller commercial projects do not net 10,000 square feet per acre. They net 8-, 8500. So I understand that there's a perception that there's a lot of commercial out there, and there's certainly a lot of commercial that could go there, but not all of it will go there. And I would urge you to look at other factors that should be considered on a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan amendment, including the appropriateness of the existing use, compatibility of the proposed use, the potential reduction of the negative impacts of sprawling, low-density, single-family development by introducing other uses to the area. I think all of these are considerations. And, again, they're not weighted. That's your job. I will say that the staff, although they raised issues with Russ's report -- and he can speak to that himself, and I hope, you know, that the questions will generate that response. I will say that there's a recommendation of approval both from Comprehensive Planning staff and from the Zoning staff. So we have a recommendation of approval. I believe we've justified the request, and now we stand open to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. You have a -- you have a recommendation of approval subject to a condition that -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- I take it you are or you're not willing to -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, that's -- I'm glad you raised that issue. The answer is probably. I just want to point out a few things. Let me get to the -- go back to the master plan. I just want to point out a few things. You can see that there is a Tract B here that runs down the west side and the south side, and that is, on average, 50 feet, slightly more in some areas, and that is the retained native vegetation buffer Tract B down here on the south side. We agreed after removal of exotic vegetation -- let me go to the aerial, because it's a little easier to -- if I can find it -- after removal of exotic vegetation in this area here to replant with native vegetation at the time of Site Development Plan sufficient to achieve opacity at 80 percent within one year. What does that mean? Well, that means you have to put in pretty large native plants such that within one year of planting, they achieve 80 percent opacity, and the policy objective is that they'll be 100 percent opaque within two years. So we agreed to do that. That is not inexpensive. You can see there will be a need -- this is mostly slash pines. After we remove the exotics, there will be a need to significantly plant within this area to achieve that 80 percent opacity within -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 73 of 102 CHAIRMAN FRYER: But looking through the materials that were on CityView, I find that early on your proposal had included a commitment to build an 8-foot wall. MR. MULHERE: It may have, but I think after we were asked to do the re-plantings, we then said, well, we shouldn't have to do both because -- and I'm going to get to that right now -- is if we do a wall -- which the staff didn't recommend an 8-foot wall. They just recommended a wall, an opaque wall. And, you know, that wall could be placed on a berm that's going to be, you know, 12 or 18 inches as part of the stormwater, and you'll achieve, I think, sufficient opacity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But eight feet was your number, your client's number. MR. MULHERE: Originally, because we weren't planning on having to replant. But, you know, you have to balance those costs. So -- and I think we were -- you know, we acquiesced to the replanting in lieu of the wall. But having said that -- MR. SAADEH: Can I say something? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, go ahead. MR. SAADEH: Commissioners, again, my name's Michel Saadeh, for the record. The swap agreement has evolved quite a bit from the first meeting we had with the county senior staff till the time that it was presented to the Board of County Commissioners. So there was a lot of variables onto what we'll agree to, what not. The very last moment, the swap was not -- was not intended to have a wet storage. We offered to build the improvements, put the drainage lines in along property line, bring them out to a discharge point, and that was an expense north of $600,000. And then when the -- when we agreed to the wet storage and digging up the pond, that number went up north of $1.8 million. So this project has evolved quite a bit over a three-acre parcel of land that was exchanged with five and all the other expenses that came with it. So, you know, during that process, that's when the eight came up, and then the eight disappeared, and we said, okay, we'll replant whatever we need to replant, and that was it. So, you know, we can work on it one way or the other. We can have a -- you know, the staff is not asking for an 8-foot fence right now. They're asking for five, I think. MR. MULHERE: Five or six. MR. SAADEH: Five or six. But the recommendation is if we -- you know, the discussions were if you would do that, then we wouldn't request of you to plant. So that's -- that's the last thing we were at. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You understand -- MR. MULHERE: What I wanted to say -- go ahead. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You understand, sir, that this matter is not at present before staff; it's before the Planning Commission? MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correct. MR. SAADEH: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Now, Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to say was the only reason, you don't have to replant in any native preservation area. You clear the exotics, and you let the native vegetation grow back in the normal way that it would. You might, through some agencies, have some mitigation or restoration. I don't think that's going to be the case here. We don't have wetlands on the site. So I guess what our position is, we'll still have that 50-foot buffer. We'll still go in and clear the exotics. And I would suggest if we are required to put a wall up, that it be a 6-foot wall on top of the berm. We haven't gone through the Water Management District, but there will be a berm because we have to hold the water on the site as it's treated, and that we not be required to replant to achieve opacity when you're not going to see that from those lots south of us because there's going to be a wall blocking your view of that. Now, I could see maybe having that fence be erected say, you know, 10 feet or five feet off the south property line so that there's access for maintenance purposes to the landowner. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 74 of 102 So in answer to your question -- and also, one last thing, we don't think a wall is necessary adjacent to a wet detention pond that's going to be owned by the county. It will probably be fenced, but it doesn't have to be an opaque wall. I mean, that would be up to the county if they are worried about liability issues. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one else is signaling at this time, so I'm going to ask a few questions, if I may. MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You quoted from Florida Statute Section 163.3177. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sub 6, Sub (a)2, and that -- that list of bullets or -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- lowercase -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- numbers, included the need for redevelopment, the need for job creation, the need to modify. How would you characterize those points in that statute? MR. MULHERE: I mean, they're all part -- they're all part of your consideration. They're all part of what we have to demonstrate would make this request appropriate. I don't -- I looked at it. They're not weighted whatsoever. There's no -- there's no indication that your commercial needs analysis, you know, becomes the sole reason for denying this application. It certainly is a consideration. I don't disagree with that. It is. That's why we did it. I mean, I think that Russ probably, you know, has some things to share with respect to some of the staff findings that I think will be enlightening for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so I think you used the words, but isn't it fair to characterize this portion of the statute as calling for a needs analysis? MR. MULHERE: It calls for data. It doesn't necessarily spe- -- it does talk about the need for the change, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you referred to it a moment ago as a needs analysis. MR. MULHERE: That's what the county calls it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. All right. And that's kind of how I see it as well. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I've got some more questions to go through. MR. MULHERE: Do you want me to ask Russ to come up? Because I don't want to answer -- you know, it's his professional product if there are questions on the needs analysis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you certainly can. I expect my questions may mature somewhat after I hear from staff. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so I sort of decided to hold some of these specific questions until the time of rebuttal. MR. MULHERE: Makes sense. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Who else did you want to bring forward, sir? MR. MULHERE: I mean, that concludes our presentation. We do want to respond to any questions that you-all may have and certainly would like to be able to rebut after -- you know, after staff and any public speakers. There was -- I do want to point out we did notice there was one, you know, letter of objection, and I think this gentleman also reached out to us because -- I don't think he was at the NIM, but I think maybe we provided him a link. I could be wrong. I just want to point out that property is right here, which is across this substantial arterial roadway from the subject property. Canal, roadway, roadway going to be widened. And I forgot to mention, obviously we do have to do a turn lane into this project. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 75 of 102 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I do have a question. I'm looking for the item in the staff report that talked about the square footage. I think it would be valuable for Russ at least to review that, because the staff report -- and that was a question I was going to ask staff. The staff report seems to imply that there's enough sufficient -- or there's sufficient commercial square footage out there, and this only adds to the already unused inventory. It seems to imply that this is more than we need. I'm looking for that portion in the staff report. That's why I'm thumbing through this. I had it, and then I closed it. It was one of the bullet points there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Page 714 of the staff -- of the packet, the agenda packet. MR. MULHERE: Well, I have it, if you can give me a second. What page? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it actually starts 708, 709. MR. MULHERE: Okay, 708, 709. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it continues on. But you're exactly right, Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You said 708? MR. MULHERE: But I would repeat -- I have to repeat, while they may have raised those issues, they also recommended approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, they recommended approval, but there was a -- and I had it highlighted, and it's just difficult to see it for some reason. MR. BOSI: It's page -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. It's Page 4 and 5 of the staff report what you're looking for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page -- MR. BOSI: Four and 5 of the staff report. Fourth and fifth page of the staff report. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I mean, the fact of the matter is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 485 is -- MR. BOSI: Page 472, 471 and 472. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair, the way you explained it is exactly correct. That's what the staff report says. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I was just going to read the numbers. MR. MULHERE: I don't see that here. Oh, in the staff report, sorry. Well, I'll just flip to it in case you have to -- there you go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You said 475? MR. BOSI: 471, 472. Page 4 and 5 of the staff report. MR. BELLOWS: Make sure you're on the GMD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. It is. It's at the top of page -- let me get -- MR. WEYER: 473. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've got the quote right here if you want me to read it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll read it there in a minute. I want to make sure we're at the right page. It's at the top of Page 473. It's Page 6 of the staff report, but it's 473, packet. And it says, based on the existing commercial square footage allowed by the FLUM, the commercial demand is met throughout -- through the 2033 10-year planning horizon. The documentation provided identified the need for 8,834,211 square feet in 2033, which is less than the 4,106,891 square feet currently allowed. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Three million. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Three million. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: You said 8 million. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, three million 834-. Thank you. The commercial square footage currently allowed is 50 percent greater or, in paren, approximately 1.9 million square feet than is currently developed in the market area. So that sentence seems to imply that what's being proposed exceeds what's really needed. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. On a gross, just, allocation of square footage that's approved. This isn't built. This is 5.A.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 76 of 102 approved within the GMP or within a PUD. There's 4.1. There is adequate. They did include an allocation ratio which was an evaluation of the existing subdistricts that allow for commercial development as well as existing PUDs that allow for commercial development that went through and analyzed whether those square footage -- square footages allowed could be realized. A good example would be the 375,000 square feet that's allowed within the Randall Curve subdistrict which starts to the -- which starts to the east of the developments that are on the east side of the canal. That's 375,000 square feet in the GMP approved. It's never been acted upon. There currently have -- there's currently a GMP application to amend that to introduce residential. The likelihood of 375,000 square feet of that being developed is relatively low. What they did -- staff just looks at the gross area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: We just look at the gross area, and the gross area is sufficient. They looked at the allocation per individual subdistrict or PUD and made an evaluation as to what they thought could actually be developed. And with that, that would suggest that there is more of a need than what the gross square footage allowed would suggest. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, my point is, I look at this as the risk is all on the developer. If they think the need is there, they take the risk, they spend the money, and they go through the process. And if it sits empty, I mean, that's the business decision. I understand staff, but what I just heard you say is, well, yes, this is what our documents say. This is what it looks like when you consider everything in the GMP now, and -- but it's never going to be that, so the end result is you recommended approval. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you're not suggesting that we should speculate on how much of what is currently permitted for commercial is actually going to be zoned commercial, should we? MR. BOSI: That is -- I think from a market research analysis, a professional such as Russ Weyer in his capacity, that's exactly what he does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That may be what he does, but it's my understanding that the Collier County program for analyzing supply of commercial looks at what the property is zoned for, not the likelihood of how it's actually going to be used; am I correct? MR. BOSI: We do not provide the likelihood of the realization of in any one PUD or any one subdistrict that allows for commercial. That's why -- that's why the submittal that was provided provided for a more detailed analysis than what we would look at from a staff perspective. We just look at gross square footage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: More detail but, really, I think at war with the standards of the county. And from my point of view, if we were to say, well, the likelihood is 50 percent that this property that is already zoned commercial is going to become actually commercial, I mean, that's pulling things out of the air, and I would prefer to go with the way that the county looks at it, which is what is currently zoned for commercial and not try to read tea leaves about how things are -- what rezones are going to be requested in the future. MR. BOSI: It's not just zoned. It's allocated within the GMP as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Which is even more important. MR. BOSI: Which is even farther away from a development schedule. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. BOSI: So it does count a gross area -- a gross square footage total that is not sometimes -- there's validity within questioning whether that square footage will be realized, but we don't do that in terms of our analysis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. And I don't think we should do it as a Planning 5.A.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 77 of 102 Commission either for the same reason, because I believe it gets you into speculation. All right. You've been interrupted. MR. WEYER: That's okay. For the record, Russ Weyer from Real Estate Econometrics. Mr. Schmitt, I believe your question was answered in terms of what the differences were. A little bit of explanation. When we do the analysis, the first thing we look for is the demand, and we get into much more of a demand than the actual county does. I take a specific area. I look at the amount of commercial that has been built. I look at the current population. And that's basically what the demand is at that point. If you're talking about -- Mr. Fryer, talking about the county, then let's talk about the county demand, because in this case, the demand for commercial is 58-something square feet per person. In the county, it's closer to 78. And if you look at the -- when we do the CIGM analysis, it was closer to 100 across the county. So, consequently, we look at it in more detail. That's the reason for that. So the demand is lower in this area, and that's what we're using on the -- going forward. That could be raised, and that would solve your $4 million -- or 4 million -- 4 million square feet analysis. However, if you look at the history -- for instance, when the property just to the north was approved, it had -- what is it, 300 -- what did you say, it was 200-and-some-odd square feet, Bob? Three hundred square feet -- 300,000 square feet. They're building apartments on there now on half of it. They're building apartments over on Orange Blossom. Randall, that one will never be developed to that point, to that 300-and-some-odd-thousand square feet. So, consequently, it's not always built full commercial. It will -- and especially here in Collier County where we have the needs for affordable housing, and apartments seemed to be filling that void. People are converting it. So, consequently, if you want to look at the full 400-, and then I can increase the demand on it and say it will be there, if I use the county averages. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your approach, though, differs from the county approach, doesn't it? MR. WEYER: My approach in terms -- well, I'm not sure what they're using in terms of -- because I did not know what they are using in terms of demand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'll talking about supply. MR. WEYER: Supply. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Demand is easier to establish. Let's talk about supply. MR. WEYER: My supply, I -- if you look at my tables, I'm using that 4 million, and what I'm saying is the demand is saying this. So the allocation ratio of -- usually at the county -- and this isn't the first time I've used the allocation ratio. I've used it over the past few years in all of my studies I do. The two across the street, I used the allocation ratio. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to interrupt you if I may, sir. MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've been a student of your materials for several years now, and there is a couple of pages that I won't -- it sounds pejorative to say cut and paste, but it's stuff that finds its way -- the exact language, it finds its way into your expertized materials. And I'm going to read some of what you wrote. You said, it is at this point of the analysis that has caused an anomaly in determining a true economic supply-and-demand result. On the supply side, it is relatively easy to determine the amount of existing and approved supply from the property appraisal data. The difficulty lies in the vacant non-approved potential sites, commercial sites. Collier County staff requires the applicant to take all of those lands that have a commercial overlay on them and include them as supply by putting a floor area ratio figure to that acre. Those are your words, correct? MR. WEYER: Correct. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 78 of 102 CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And this is not -- and that's not the analysis that you proceed with, is it? MR. WEYER: It is the -- and that's what I did with the commercial ones, and that's the part of the PUDs that have the commercial overlays on them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you don't -- you don't include land that is zoned commercial. You're wanting to look at land that is either up and running as commercial or perhaps has a -- has started construction or much farther along the line than lands that are just simply available for commercial. MR. WEYER: On the demand side. On the supply side I did include vacant commercials in there, regular commercial that's been built is in there, and all the PUD square footages are in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, but then -- okay. So then the staff report, as the vice chairman read, said based on the existing square footage allowed by the FLUM, the commercial demand is met through the 2033 planning horizon. That's what's in the staff report. Do you agree with that? MR. WEYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You do disagree with it? MR. WEYER: The demand -- right now the demand -- well, what you're saying on is on the blank supply side, the 4 million square feet? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I just -- with respect to what I read, do you agree or disagree with it? MR. MULHERE: We disagree, and we disagree because there are changing conditions, and we just named several of them, and there will be more changing conditions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I just wanted to establish that your expert and staff are coming at this from different angles and come to different conclusions. MR. MULHERE: So at 4 million, you know, was a number that was deemed to be more than adequate, and we said, well, 700,000 of that's not getting built. Now, that's speculative, I grant you, but that is a changing condition that reduces the inventory -- potential inventory of commercial use, and we know that's going to continue. And then I would reiterate, again, that there are other reasons to look at this application. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, yes, there are. The -- basically, sir, you're asking us to consider the possibility that some square footage that's currently zoned commercial may not develop, and I think -- MR. MULHERE: In reality in some parts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, and I think Mr. Mulhere just used the exact word. It would be speculation for us to weigh in either way on that, and that's why when we look at what's available commercially, we look at present zoning and, as Ms. Eastley has pointed out in her staff report quite accurately, based on the existing commercial square footage allowed by the FLUM, the commercial demand is met through the 2033 planning horizon. MR. MULHERE: And that's fine. We just -- we disagree that there's not adequate support for this. Now, let me just say, some of this is somewhat speculative. And I just gave you the example of Immokalee Road Rural Village, which has 375,000 square feet of commercial uses, commercial and light industrial uses. Again, if it comes in for a village, they may build all of that or some of that. If they come in for residential, they'll build zero. I don't know the answer to that. So in that sense, I agree with you; I can't guarantee that one or the other is the case. I can tell you that there are projects where we know they're not building the same amount of commercial, Orange Blossom Ranch is one of them, because they just got approved for an apartment -- 400-unit apartment on 12 or 13 acres of what was designated commercial. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But they're off the roster now of commercial. MR. MULHERE: They're not. They're not. That was included both in the staff and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 79 of 102 Russ's analysis. That total 200,000 square feet was included. That's not what's going to get built. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's clear to me -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Also, on the -- in the expert report, you're using persons per household of 2.9 which, as Ms. Eastley correctly identifies in her staff report, that exceeds -- and I'm quoting. She says it exceeds the U.S. Department -- exceeds the U.S. Census which utilizes 2.4 persons per household, and it also exceeds the work that has been done by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Department of University of Florida, which is commonly called BEBR. And I don't -- I'm not absolutely opposed to departing from BEBR and the Census, but I think you need to have concrete reasons such as if you're basing your justification for departing from those standards, which are objective, they're not -- they're not based upon somebody's advocacy, I think you need to give us reasons. Like vacancies, for instance, would be a reason. And when I looked through your report, which I looked through carefully, I didn't see any justification for using the 2.9 number, which is considerable higher than BEBR and also eons higher, solar systems higher than what developers come in when they're applying for residential units. We had a developer come in and argue to us that multifamily dwelling units in Eastern Collier County, that the PPH is 1.05, which I think is totally implausible. So, you know, it seems to me PPH for a particular area -- it can be adjusted based upon facts like vacancies, but it's a number that exists regardless of whether the applicant is arguing for residential or commercial, and we ought to choose one and stick with it and then hear reasons why that number should be varied from. But you just come out with the 2.9 which I think -- and asks us to accept it, and we're the same group that heard the 1.05 on a residential development. MR. WEYER: Commissioner Fryer, I know we've gone back and forth a lot about persons per household. Persons per household was not used in any calculations in this report. The reason it was in there was because I utilized the Esri data that you see in the report. And they talk about population, they talk about households, and they calculated it at 3.9, and that's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: 2.9. MR. WEYER: -- U.S. Census. I'm sorry, 2.9, because it's usually 2.39 is the county average -- that's the average. If you remember that map I gave you a couple years ago, that showed that the 2.39 is the county average; however, we're looking at micro areas. This is looking at a five-mile area. MR. MULHERE: Tell them what Esri is. MR. WEYER: Oh, Esri is the -- that's my database that -- I'm sorry. I use a business analyst online that uses geographic -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I know. And you've -- MR. WEYER: You know what Esri is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- used it many times before, and I accept that. MR. WEYER: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But just because it was propagated by Esri or some other group does not make it beyond challenge, and -- MR. WEYER: I totally understand. And sorry -- not to interrupt. First of all, it wasn't used in any calculations. It was there, and when I used the one sentence in my report that talked about it was to show that the persons per household are actually going to decline a little bit when you have, like, Sky Sail and Rivergrass and those where you're going to have retirees and that sort of thing at those price ranges. So it's going to bring it down a little bit. And if you remember our discussion, we talked about the way the county is. I'm looking at a micro area. I'm not looking at a county average. If I want to use the county average, I want to use the 100 -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 80 of 102 CHAIRMAN FRYER: For the court reporter, please slow down just a little bit. MR. WEYER: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll give you all the time you want. MR. WEYER: I'm sorry. I was getting excited. If you look at the county and you want to use the 2. -- 2.39, we -- if you look along the coast, if I were to do a project along the coast, which I have done, it's probably closer to 2 because of all the retirees and all of that. And if you look at projects further east, like Immokalee and Ave Maria, it's probably closer to 3. So this was a micro -- I didn't use the county average. I was actually using the data for that area. It wasn't used in the report. It was in there, and I knew it was going to be brought up. But the only reason that I put it in there -- or left it in there -- could have taken it out -- I left it in there was to show that I think the persons per household is going to go down. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you have -- you put it in your report and now you're suggesting that we shouldn't rely on it and that the applicant didn't rely on it or the staff didn't rely on it. MR. WEYER: It wasn't in any of the calculations anywhere. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it was in your report. MR. WEYER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Isn't it a fair statement that a higher PPH supports the arguments for commercial developments and a lower PPH supports the arguments for a residential development? Would you agree to that? MR. WEYER: It depends on the situation. Why do we have so much commercial along the coast and along 41 and places like that where the persons per household is at 2? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're saying it's at 2 along the coast? MR. WEYER: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gulf Shore Boulevard? MR. WEYER: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, come on. MR. WEYER: You have -- okay. I will get you the data, sir. I promise to show you that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- MR. WEYER: Anyway, we're getting off the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, we're not. MR. WEYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The next thing I want to talk to you about in your report, you have a conclusionary paragraph, an in-conclusion type of paragraph, maybe around Page 20 or so, and then the next 80 or so pages are computations and the like, correct? MR. WEYER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And in your conclusion, you state that more commercially zoned land, quote, will not adversely affect the balance of commercial space to commercial demand, closed quote. Those were your words. MR. WEYER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Are you -- are you telling us that "will not adversely affect" is the same thing as "need"? MR. WEYER: I didn't say it's the same thing as need. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I just wanted to be sure that you're not saying that. It's not the same thing as need, is it? MR. WEYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. And that may be all I have for you at this time. Thank you very much. I didn't mean to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 81 of 102 be argumentative. MR. WEYER: And I didn't either. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I know you didn't. MR. WEYER: It's a professional discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We've had this discussion before and may have it again, and I respect your expertise and your point of view, and thank you. MR. WEYER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Mulhere, do you have some more? MR. MULHERE: No, but I assumed there might be more questions, which I'm happy to answer if there are. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, yeah. I think I'm going to -- MR. MULHERE: Try to answer, sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to -- I'm going to reserve the rest of my questions until we hear from Ms. Eastley and other staff members -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because I think it will sharpen the issues and possibly even save time, God forbid. So no one is signaling at this point. Does any Planning Commission member want to be heard at this time? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No? All right. Then we'll turn it over to staff. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As indicated by the applicant, staff is recommending approval. We did recognize that there was an abundance of square footage. We did look at the allocation ratio and took some merit from that because we do know that, specifically, the Randall Curve subdistrict, that 375,000 is not going to be able to develop to that area -- to that amount. We also recognized the public benefit that's being provided for. And the question of whether three single-family homes with driveways onto Immokalee Road in the location of a proposed flyover was an appropriate land use and thought that that was a conclusion that favored the transition to an alternative use than single-family. Based upon that, staff is recommending, from a Comp Planning standpoint -- but we are recommending that, for compatibility reasons, that the additional 50-foot buffer be augmented by an opaque fence or wall. We did specify a height. Traditionally, that would be six or eight feet based upon -- but we thought that would be something that we could discuss with the Planning Commission as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is it staff's point of view that there is a need for this project -- for this GMPA? MR. BOSI: We believe there's justification. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a need? MR. BOSI: Based upon the amount of gross square footage, the need would be questionable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Eastley? Go ahead, Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff recommendation, you talked about the opaque wall. Are you supportive of the position that Mr. Mulhere raised concerning -- he addressed they would do an enhanced buffer or a wall. So if he puts the wall up, it's just going to be the buffer, and it will be a natural buffer to take its own course and growing out an enhanced native vegetation? MR. BOSI: I would normally turn to Ms. Cook, but from staff's perspective, I think that removal of the exotics with an opaque fence and wall on the -- the property side -- the Estates residence side of the -- of that buffer would be more than adequate, but I could let Jaime correct 5.A.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 82 of 102 me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Without the enhancements that was originally proffered? MR. BOSI: The enhancements, when you put up an opaque fence or wall, for me doesn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a moot point. MR. BOSI: It's a moot point. But removal of the exotics is something we still would want. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Jaime, all yours. MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, director of Development Review. So the Golden Gate Master Plan for the Rural Estates requires a 75-foot buffer between residential and commercial development. The GMP request is to reduce that to 50 feet. Now, the exotics is almost a moot point because that's going to be required by code regardless of whether there's a wall there or not. If the wall were there, that provides the opacity that staff would be looking for in terms of what we typically look for with a preserve. So staff was supportive of the wall or an opaque fence from the sense that that provides the opacity that's needed to allow for that reduced buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the wall would go all the way -- it would not require a wall between the applicant's property and the retention pond. That could remain a natural buffer? MS. COOK: That could remain open, and staff would probably recommend that for ease of access for even Road Maintenance to be able to get -- or South Florida Water Management District to be able to get along that canal. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opacity might solve the visual problem, but it doesn't -- and don't go away yet, please, ma'am -- but it doesn't really do anything about potential noise, does it? A wall might. MS. COOK: No. The wall may do more for the noise. But staff wouldn't take a position either way as to whether it's a wall or a fence. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And why is that? MS. COOK: That's not what's within my purview, so -- I don't get into that. The -- we're focused more on the opacity part of it. So the wall or a, you know, vinyl or a wood-type fence that would meet the code requirements would provide that opacity that I'm looking for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. But common sense tells us -- you're very commonsensical, I know -- that with a wall you're going to get more attenuation of noise, correct? MS. COOK: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. That's all. May I have Ms. Eastley come up? MS. EASTLEY: Good afternoon. Kathy Eastley, Planner III with Comprehensive Planning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I was impressed with your staff report. My only critique of it would be that I think your recommendation fell a little bit short of the solid points you made leading up to it. We can talk about that in a moment. I just want to be sure that there has been no change. And you've heard it quoted both by the Vice Chairman, also by me, in the staff report that I assume you authored, based on the existing commercial square footage allowed by the FLUM, the commercial demand is met through the 2033 planning horizon. Agreed? MS. EASTLEY: That is agreed. However, if I might make one point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MS. EASTLEY: You know, we just recently expanded our planning horizon to 2045, so we are looking at an extended period of time now. So even though we say that the commercial square footage is met today, and it may even 5.A.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 83 of 102 be met in 10 years, it may not be met in 20 years. And so from a growth management standpoint, we're looking at providing for that -- that amount of commercial square footage through the planning horizon. So there is some support for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you're -- well, let me see if I understand what you're saying. Your statement goes through 2033, right? MS. EASTLEY: I believe that was correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And so now you're talking about 2045 because that horizon has been expanded, but you're not in a position to say whether it is or is not sufficient up to that time today in your testimony, are you? MS. EASTLEY: No, but I did notice that in the -- in Mr. Weyer's report, there was some documentation provided that in certain year periods of time that X amount of square footage of commercial would be necessary. And so even though we may be exceeding what is required today, that that would be absorbed in the future planning period. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May. MS. EASTLEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, may. Okay. May, may not. And you also said that the staff -- that the applicant's presentation exceeds the U.S. department census which utilizes 2.4 persons per household. MS. EASTLEY: Correct. And I think that the -- I may be incorrect, but what I had assumed was that the persons per household was used on a per capita basis to determine the amount of commercial square footage to support future populations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And what would your opinion be on that? MS. EASTLEY: If the higher persons per household were utilized, it might inflate that commercial square footage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And in your opinion, if you have one, is 2.9 PPH, is that justified? MS. EASTLEY: I think that we have seen -- and Mr. Weyer agrees that that's not justified. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not justified. MS. EASTLEY: Not as a -- for use in projecting future need based on future population. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I think I just have one more question for you. In your -- in your point of view -- and I'm asking you to put on your needs analysis hat now. In your point of view, is there a need for this Growth Management Plan amendment; a need? MS. EASTLEY: So I think the best answer I can come up with there is that this needs analysis is not just a science, but it is also an art. And Mr. Weyer has explained that you can come up with supply. You can come up with demand. But there are factors that are going to occur that are going to affect that, and so that's where the art part comes in. Is there a need today for it? No. But is there a need for it in the future? Yes. And I do support that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In the future, like 21st Century, something like that? MS. EASTLEY: Past 2033. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. There's all I have for you. MS. EASTLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody else have questions for Ms. Eastley? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else from staff? MR. BOSI: Nothing from staff, unless you have any questions. MR. SABO: I've got something. I want to say something real quick. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sabo. MR. SABO: Good morning. Good morning. Good afternoon. Sorry. Pardon me. James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 84 of 102 Mr. Chairman, we -- to steal a phrase from Mr. Yovanovich, we reserve the right to get smarter. So as we developed our recommendation for this project and through the numbers that we went through 2.9, 2.4, we decided that it was a reasonable calculation, and we are, therefore, recommending approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So we now turn to members of the public, and, Ms. Padron, what do we have? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, I'm putting on my other hat. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. SABO: Brian McMahon and Rae Ann Burton are the only two speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Actually, before we go to the speakers, I have one more comment -- question for staff, possibly the County Attorney. With the potential for zoning this to commercial, what could the possible impacts be under the Live Local Act? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director. The conversion of this from Estates to commercial PUD would make it eligible for a Live Local request to be exercised. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So higher buildings, more density? MR. BOSI: It would be entitled to the highest density allowed within -- within the county and the highest approved -- that's what the statutes say, and the highest approved height within one mile of this area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so if affordable housing were part of the mix -- I realize this is speculative, but we've engaged in a fair amount of speculation already on this. But if this property were rezoned commercial and then subsequently brought in on an affordable housing rezone, it wouldn't even come to the Planning Commission or the BCC, would it? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. And -- which I think is something worth thinking about. And I think that's all I have. Go ahead, sir. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Is that not true of all of the other commercial that's in the immediate area right now in terms of qualifying surrounding lands for the Live Local? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you doing a rebuttal? MR. MULHERE: I'm asking the staff a question. I'm not entitled to do that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, you're entitled to do it, but just -- just the timing. MR. MULHERE: I'll wait. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. You're going to have a full opportunity of rebuttal. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And -- if you don't mind, I'm trying to -- thank you very much. I'll try to help you remember if you don't remember. All right. Who do we have from the public? MR. SABO: All right. Mr. Chairman, two speakers, Brian McMahon and Rae Ann Burton. They can each take a podium. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. McMAHON: How you doing? My name's Brian McMahon. I live on 22nd, which is a block or so off of this project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. McMAHON: I'm getting concerned, though. When I bought my house in 2000, zoning laws were designed to protect property owners, and now we're suddenly looking like we're going to start becoming Houston, Texas, where there is no zoning laws. And if he can do this, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 85 of 102 why can't I build a Jiffy Lube two houses down from mine? This is not what we bought. This is not protecting the current residents. This isn't a small little doctor's office. This is a 125,000-square-foot building. This is the size of a Home Depot or a Lowe's on residential lots that are backing up to people's property. This isn't right. I mean, at least you addressed the noise, and I appreciate that because you're going to have trucks backing up, beeping, car stereos, car alarms, all this stuff. At least I appreciate you addressing the noise issue of it. But, you know, I understand now why the county got involved with it, but there's plenty of commercial land that this can be built on. You've got Big Cypress, you've Ave Maria, all kinds of place that this can be built. But one main point you've got to remember, and it's a state law, in Golden Gate Estates, it is perfectly legal to shoot a gun in your backyard. So you've got your 50-foot buffer, which is about from where you're sitting to that wall, and there's a guy on the other side of whatever you build running 30 rounds through an AR15, and it's perfectly legal. Now, I'm not saying he's going to shoot the people, but some people are going to get real nervous about that. Some tenants are going to get nervous; customers are going to get nervous. Something to think about, putting a building where people are shooting. Ain't a good idea. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Next speaker is Ms. Burton. MS. BURTON: Hello. It's Rae Ann Burton again. I didn't really come for this one. I came for the other one, so I'm not really prepared, one. Two, Growth Management Plan written was to protect and keep the Estates rural and open spaces. Three, the growth plan is not a toy to be used for developers to play with and adjust so they can build what they want, disregarding the impact on those that live here. Four, heard today the area was dense, that's why the land is -- the reason it is, the land is being bought by realtors or developers, not the public, and they're building houses. I've seen the houses sit for over a year before even bought. Five, it won't increase jobs or benefit the residents. It benefits only the developers. Six, the area's already traffic congested and accident prone and a parking lot. If you try going down Immokalee over to Randall, forget it. Seven, it doesn't fit the unique rural area. Eight, it only built it there because it's cheaper than the already commercial areas. Why not build it next to Rivergrass in the new developments? Those are really dense over there. Nine, a reason why -- this is a reason why over 700 people signed petitions to try to incorporate the Estates to protect our quality of life, our unique environment of the rural area, and keep commercial out. Ten, 12 years ago, on 7/11, the corner of Oil Well and Immokalee was a panther crossing sign. It disappeared when development started. Eleven, hope I haven't wasted my time to come here today, that my voice is really heard, that this isn't already a done deal, or it hasn't been done just so the developers satisfy legal obligations. Twelve, please don't approve. Make developers adhere to the original Golden Gate growth plan. Keep us rural. Don't make us Miami. We have already increased in traffic congestion, accidents, even deaths, crimes, and panther deaths. Thirteen, please don't let developers bury us with their dense commercial developments. Fourteen, don't approve. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And before we -- oh, any other registered speakers? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 86 of 102 MR. SABO: We have no registered speakers online. That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anyone in the room who hasn't registered nonetheless wishes to be heard in this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands raised, we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing. And before we go to rebuttal, I have another question or two for staff that I want to get in before rebuttal so that Mr. Mulhere has an opportunity to include it in his rebuttal if he wishes. We have heard a little bit about a swap agreement, and it's -- I read the materials, and it -- it is debatable whether the -- whether the swap agreement is of benefit to the county or not. But, fortunately, it's really above our pay grade. We don't need to evaluate the benefit to the county of the swap agreement because that's not the test. Benefit is not the test. The test is need. And I would just like to be sure that there's no misunderstanding here that the -- if the swap agreement may be of benefit to the county, let's say it is, but that doesn't satisfy the need to prove need, does it? MR. BOSI: That doesn't alter. The Board of County Commissioners has stated that if a Growth Management Plan is being prospered [sic], then there has to be an identified public benefit that's associated with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Along with a need. MR. BOSI: Along with a need. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Okay. That's a fair statement. And I realize that the BCC's already weighed in on this, and so that's a given; the agreement is there. And so we can take it for the sake of discussion that it is of benefit to the county. But to me that is not the equivalent of need and, to me, need is required. And, again, the Growth Management Plan is sort of like the constitution of this county; it's the most senior document we have, and it sets the legitimate expectations of the public as to what they can rely on or plan for with respect to what's going to happen to their property and to properties surrounding their property. And so I think we mustn't take it lightly when changes are requested. And I think over -- over a period of time, perhaps we're just as guilty about this as maybe staff, maybe the Board of County Commissioners. But there's been a relaxation of the requirement that there needs to be, I think, pretty strict proof of benefit and need, not benefit or need. And I think we have to look out for the interests of the residents and the folks in the rural estates who, you know, had a right to expect that without -- without meeting the letter of the legal requirements, which I think we've outlined, we shouldn't just be handing out Growth Management Plan amendments like they were Monopoly tokens. That's in my opinion. So that's all I have to say on that. And we've closed the public comment portion, and so now we can go to rebuttal. And don't forget you wanted to ask staff a question. MR. MULHERE: Yes, I appreciate that. Well, I was just going to point out -- I mean, the Live Local Act -- you know, there's an awful lot of areas where -- that are mixed use or commercial in nature. That applies to mixed use or commercial areas. So while I don't agree that by changing the designation to commercial, it may somewhat expand the area, it doesn't change it a whole lot because, as Mike said, highest density in the county. And is it a one-mile? So it's a one-mile circumference around the project, or is it -- is it the highest height or the highest density? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Height. MR. BOSI: The one-mile -- the one-mile radius around the project is to determine what is the highest approved height. MR. MULHERE: Height. MR. BOSI: And the other portion in terms of density that would -- the project would be 5.A.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 87 of 102 entitled to is the highest density allowed per the county. MR. MULHERE: And so these other PUDZs allow similar or higher than what we've requested. So I'm just saying, you know, that's already established. I do want to talk about the term "need." I mean, I think it's -- I don't know, maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but I think that term can be used to draw a very fine line. You know, one side there's no need. The other side there is need. What is the need? Is it for economic gain? No. So what is the actual criteria for a Comp Plan amendment? Which I talked about, you know, earlier. The Future Land Use Plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. There's no question that there's going to be more commercial needed. The question is whether or not -- is the timing of that, which may or may not -- I mean, staff testified to the same thing that we did. There will be more commercial needed. It's just a question of timing. Ten years is not a long time from right now in this type of consideration. The character of the undeveloped land. I believe I put adequate testimony on there that showed you what's going to happen in this area with a grade-separated intersection and other massive improvements, adjacency to commercial. Even staff testified that it's probably not a good location for three single-family lots adjacent to this six-lane roadway. Compatibility, staff finds that we're compatible. We believe we are, especially with the design standards that we put into the PUD. And then, finally, the discouragement of urban sprawl. I don't know that this discourages urban sprawl, but it certainly helps to correct the negative impacts from a huge -- at one point the world's largest subdivision with one use, low density single-family. This is appropriate. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So we come to the time where it's up to us to deliberate and to vote. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'll make a comment. I have to concur with Mr. Mulhere on the compatibility. I think the county made a decision many years ago when they made this a six-lane divided highway. I just do not look at this -- these three sites as being what I would call suitable for a single-family home. If this isn't built, something else will be there eventually whatever that may be. I just -- to say these are part of the rural character of Golden Gate, three lots fronting a six-lane divided highway soon to be within a mile of a grade-separated overpass is not, to me, and can -- to be compatible with the statement of this is a rural community. So I just don't even anticipate that there would -- anybody would ever build a home on these lots. So I tend to support the petition. I tend to -- I would make a recommendation, but right now I'll just say that I'll support the petition. I believe that the -- what was offered by the petitioner to put up the wall on the three lots, not the lot that is adjacent to the detention area, but put up a wall, and then with standard vegetation, a 50-foot buffer, which is proposed. So I could make the motion, or I'll wait to hear what others have to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your call. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I have a -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Question, I guess hypothetically for staff. When you look across the street to the north of Immokalee, you have, obviously, the canal, which makes it almost impossible to come off of Immokalee and turn into any of the vacant land. They have to come in off of 25th Avenue Northeast, right? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 88 of 102 MR. BOSI: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Hypothetically, could landowners do that, get together just north of 24th Avenue Northeast and, for example, maybe put up flag lots with a minor road between the lots that are adjacent to Immokalee and the lots that are adjacent to 24th Avenue Northeast and make, like, a service road behind the lots that -- I know I'm getting in the weeds -- the lots that are on 24th and that butt up against to Immokalee? My question would be: Is there a way to turn this and various other property, for example, between -- still on 24th Avenue Northeast -- let's see, what is this? Between Wilson and -- I guess that's it. Wilson, because we have the canal at the other end -- to make those lots accessible for homeowners not having to have access off of Immokalee? MR. BOSI: It's possible. It would be highly unprobable. That access road at the back of their parcels, the parcels that front on Immokalee Road, would be marrying up to the very middle of the two other parcels that are -- abut Wilson Road. That configuration does not suggest that that is something that's highly probable. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: After looking at this and recognizing -- and I'm just on maps on my laptop here -- and zooming out, you don't see much commercial in this area. At first the plan might be attractive, but it's the first parcel of area that's being used as commercial outside of 4th Street, Randall, and the Immokalee curve. And once you start that migration of commercial outside of that corridor, more than likely it's only going to continue, while the corridor now that we're discussing here just before the curve is, I'll take a guess here, 98 percent rural homes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So to me, it's difficult to be the first one to make a decision to increase the commercial area outside of where there seems to be possibilities for other commercial areas. So I haven't come up with a conclusion or made up my mind, but I was just trying to think, hypothetically, if somebody wanted to use that property that's in question now from the petitioner for personal residences, how could they get there? Could they do something off of Wilson? Could they do something with a flag lot off of 24th Avenue Northeast? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else want to be heard? I'm going to make a statement. Go ahead, though. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I might as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Mr. Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's a tough one. I totally agree with everything Joe said, that in the long run it will probably be better, but I also agree with the fact that homeowners have the right to expect that we're going to stick with the Growth Management Plan unless there's an overriding benefit to the community. I'm still torn which way to go, to be quite honest with you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I'm going to say some things, really, in the nature of a summary, because I believe I've raised all the issues that I have concern about, save possibly for one that I'll mention in a moment. We've talked about the commercial square footage and the demand at this time and going through 2033. And I realize we've extended the planning horizon to 2045, but the farther out you go, the more speculative it is. And the fact that the staff report said based on the existing commercial square footage allowed by the FLUM, the commercial demand is met through the 2033 planning horizon, that fact, I believe, remains. And the possibility of some of the square footage that is currently available commercially, zoned commercially, or could be is speculative, and I don't think that it is within our purview to follow the invitation of the economic analysts who believe that we should assume a certain 5.A.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 89 of 102 percentage of what is now commercially available will be rezoned to something else and thereby create more commercial need. I think that's extremely -- well, it's rank speculation. Also, on the demand side, I -- thank you for clarifying in your testimony that you're not relying on the 2.9 persons per household but, nonetheless, that number was in there, and, you know, you have to assume that it's in there for a reason. And the fact that again and again we see lowball numbers coming in, PPH for residential deals, and high numbers coming in for commercial deals, PPH should be a scientific calculation. It doesn't mean there can't be adjustments to it, but you have to start with, like, a number like 2.4 and then apply your exceptions, like vacancies and whatever else. So I fault the economic analysis for even including that information. And I've talked about the gradual creep of where it seems like Growth Management Plan amendments have gone from something that should be rare exceptions to something that -- something that have really become the rule, and that is definitely not fair to the residents. I think they have expectations that are reasonable, and they're not inviolate, but it's -- to me, at least, it's a high standard before we amend the Growth Management Plan. And I think holding applicants to meeting the standards of the statute and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the other ordinances, I think we owe them that. The needs analysis, Mr. Bosi testified there is no need. I think Mr. Mulhere testified that needs analysis is a part -- an essential part of this process. The consultant, the most -- and I did an electronic word search on "need." I might have missed something, but I don't think I did. And the most the consultant was able to say was that the commercial zoning will not adversely affect the balance. And not adversely affecting and create -- and fulfilling a need are really two very different things. Fourth, I've heard it argued that the swap agreement provides a benefit to the county. And for the sake of discussion, I'll concede the point that Mr. Bosi made that both a benefit and a need are desirable, but a need, I think, has to be shown under the subsection of Chapter 163 that I cited. And so the benefit is fine, but it doesn't satisfy the requirement of a need. And if benefit alone were enough -- this is maybe, let's say, a Latin expression, reductio ad absurdum. But if all we needed was a benefit to the county, filing your application and attaching a million-dollar check payable to the amount of county would be enough because that's a significant benefit, but it disregards, in this case, the reasonable expectations of the people in the Rural Estates. Okay. So finally, there have been two recent developments that have made me look more carefully at GMP amendments that from my analysis make this a different process than it was six months or a year ago. And first was the Live Local Act. And Live Local, a clever alliteration, but it's a misrepresentation of what it does. What it really does is it regulates remotely, another alliteration. Tallahassee wants to make the rules for Collier County and that, to me, is an anathema. I don't want to see that, but it's happening by degrees -- increasingly frightening degrees. But it ties our hands. And as was pointed out, if there were a subsequent rezoning -- if this becomes commercial, it becomes fully eligible for administrative approval that won't even come to the Planning Commission, won't even come to the Board of County Commissioners, and it will increase both height and density, which I think is something that we do not want to lose ahold of. And, finally, another recent development -- and this is just my impression. People are free to differ. But I watched closely the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, and although the moratorium did not pass, there was considerable discussion, not only among members of the public, but also by the Board of County Commissioner members themselves expressing what I interpret to be some angst over what has been happening along Immokalee and along Vanderbilt and, perhaps, for reasons of not wanting to invite litigation, which a moratorium might well do, or, perhaps, also maybe even more importantly for reasons that a moratorium really doesn't solve the problem. The problem is still there; it just gets postponed. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 90 of 102 So the idea of a moratorium was rejected. But the message that I took away from our bosses, the county commissioners, was that they maybe want us to take a little closer look at these Growth Management Plan amendments particularly along Immokalee and Vanderbilt Beach. Do it on a case-by-case basis, but be sure that the applicable laws and ordinances are strictly interpreted and that their meaning is applied to each case individually. And for those reasons, I am going to be voting against this proposal. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm going to yield to Joe. The only thing I wanted to add is I'm more -- I think the traffic egress, you know, in and out, right turn -- right turn in, right turn out to me, on a commercial side -- and I may be way out of whack -- presents a much more significant traffic problem with three individual lots, resident lots, and that also adds to the consideration in my mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm going to make a recommendation for approval of both the GMPA and the CP -- accompanying CPUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the reason -- again, I'm going to reiterate, the decision was made by this county and the Board of County Commissioners long ago in regards to the developing of this corridor. I've heard for years that we need commercial to prevent traffic having to come west for commercial services when, in fact, the issue is that folks along these -- this corridor, there's always been an express need for commercial. I know there's areas along the curve, but it seems to be, from what I'm hearing -- and one of the conversations I had with Mr. Mulhere and what I heard from staff, some of these commercial areas are now being converted to residential just because it seems to be either highly -- or more desirable or more profitable. But the fact is, it's a six-lane divided highway. The decision was made years ago that this was going to be a major corridor. And I just don't see this area as being suitable for single-family homes and, therefore, I'm making a recommendation of approval for both -- both petitions, both the GMPA and the PUD with the stipulation that the wall would be constructed on the three lots that back up to the residential properties, and that the 50-foot buffer will be exactly that, a 50-foot natural buffer, not an enhanced buffer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you have a footage? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fifty-foot was what they were asking for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, height of the wall. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I don't. I don't know -- I mean, did staff come up with a recommendation? Six-foot, eight-foot wall? What do you -- MR. BOSI: Six-foot -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Six-foot wall is typical, isn't it, or is it an eight-foot wall? MR. BOSI: Six-foot typical when you have a fence. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right, a six-foot. MR. BOSI: A wall would be eight-foot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eight-foot wall? MR. BOSI: I mean, the code section says up to eight feet, so it gives a lot of discretion within that buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. But it could be a wall-on-a-berm type of construction as well? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Mulhere, do you have a proposal? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, we've used in the past is wall and berm combination up to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A wall and berm combination. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 91 of 102 MR. MULHERE: Wall and berm comb- -- up to eight feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Up to eight feet. Okay. That's in my recommendation. MR. MULHERE: And there's -- MR. BOSI: Is there flexibility within an opaque fence or wall, or did you just -- or is it just -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. It will be an -- it will be an opaque -- it will be a wall for sound purposes. MR. MULHERE: So that can -- but that can still be a prefab concrete wall? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, yes, yes, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: For a total eight feet, including the berm that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eight feet including the berm. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That it sits atop. MR. MULHERE: I did want to point out there's actually four lots if -- I'm just trying to see here. There's -- let's see. Excuse me. One, two, three, four -- excuse me, one, two, three, four lots, not including the county's. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I was saying your three lots, not -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The rear of your three lots that front the four lots, yes, thank you, or that -- MR. MULHERE: But excluding the county's. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Excluding the county lot, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. There's a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been seconded -- moved and seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What did Robb vote? I didn't hear him. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I vote yay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So it's 3-2. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 3-2 which way? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Three -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It failed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two for, three against. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. MR. MULHERE: Denial. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public and Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- figure out what we're going to do? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We're going to take a break right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I may have to get out of here by 4 o'clock, so -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Who were the votes again? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 92 of 102 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I may come back, but I have to go to a business and pick up my car. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we're going to take a -- they call it a court reporter break, but I need it just as much, and we'll take a 10-minute break to -- 10 and 4 -- to 3:54 p.m. In recess. (A brief recess was had from 3:44 p.m. to 3:54 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. The purpose of our coming back into session right now is to announce the absence of a physical quorum at the dais sufficient for us to continue. Vice Chairman Schmitt had a very important errand that he had to run to a location that is very close and believes he'll be back by 4:10, 4:15, and so we're going to continue in recess until he returns because there's really nothing else we could do other than adjourn. So we continue in recess until he returns. (A brief recess was had from 3:54 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic and a quorum. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, on both counts, Mr. Bosi. ***I'm going to announce the next and final matter. They are companions. They are PL20220000946, the Home Depot Southeast Naples Commercial District Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and PL20220000543, the Home Depot Southeast Naples CPUDZ. All persons wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. 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? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures, starting with Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Matters of public record, meetings with staff, and a conversation with the applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials and a brief conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, just meeting with staff and also that was the same for the prior matters. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Thank you very much. Yeah, that's right. We had lost you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I have that on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you want to explain, Rich, while you -- when you left, we failed to vote for the EAC on your previous petition, and we did vote and passed unanimously for the EAC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: EAC part, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We had to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll take that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We had to complete the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll take that. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Vice Chair, for catching that. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 93 of 102 You may proceed, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. With me, obviously, I have Trey Conway. He's the Home Depot director of real estate. Wayne Arnold's our planner. Hamilton Williams is the architecture on the project. David Dratnol is the traffic consultant. Bethany Brosious, she's still here, is our ecologist. And Justin Napolitano is our engineer. I'm going to just do a real quick overview. In speaking with the planning commissioners, there was one specific e-mail that -- someone who attended the public neighborhood information meeting and subsequently submitted an e-mail regarding how the site will operate, and I'm going to have Hamilton come up and address that. But just briefly, brief overview, the parcel's 13.77 acres. It's in the urban area in the Growth Management Plan. It's currently zoned C-3. It's what is considered consistent by policy because it was commercially developed property at the time the Growth Management Plan was approved. Essentially, what we're doing is we're adding a Home Depot store to the already allowed uses on the property, which is C-3, and Home Depot did a detailed analysis of this area of Collier County, if you've seen that review as to why they want to locate on this site. We took, you know, good care in looking at arranging the site for a couple reasons. One was we wanted to be consistent with what East Naples wanted. They didn't want the sea of parking out front. They prefer landscaping and a little bit of parking out front. So the store has been placed on this site respecting those goals of the East Naples area. And the store -- and Hamilton will take you through this -- has been specifically designed to accommodate the layout of the parking and how it will work. I don't know the easiest way to do this, but I'm going to ask Hamilton to come up. And I guess the best thing -- and I wish I could leave this up at the same time as I put the comments from Mr. Mann on the visualizer. But I think I'm going to have to do that so you can see it in the context of the questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can switch back and forth if you need to. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Hi. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commission. Hamilton Williams with GreenbergFarrow Architecture. And as Rich mentioned -- will I be able to rotate between the visualizer and the site plan? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. WILLIAMS: Right here. Oh, right here. We'll start with the site plan just to take one second to orient everybody to the current site plan as I go forward and respond to some of the interested party questions that were sent over to staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And while -- I just want to make the point that for those who are watching this on TV, the material, Mr. Mann's e-mail and then his annotation of the site plan, appear in the agenda packet, Pages 1779 through 1780. Sorry. Go ahead, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. Thank you. And just as a point to -- a lot of these items were discussed at the neighborhood meeting. There was some discussion back and forth. And we honestly went back to the design team, to the engineering team, and Home Depot's design team, took some of the feedback from the neighborhood meeting and made some adjustments to the site plan that I'll walk through here. There were two primary items in Mr. Mann's e-mails. There were three or four different comments, but they focused on access off of Tamiami Trail being one, and then circulation throughout the property and the potential for some congestion, as well as the parking field location from what you consider as a standard typical prototype Home Depot Site Development Plan. So on this site, there are three access points that were from Tamiami Trail. There's one on the left side that exists today with a cross-access easement with the cross-access drive that will be 5.A.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 94 of 102 put in place, there's a driveway in the center, and then there's a driveway on the far east side of the plan that aligns with the current left-hand turn lane that's in the median going northbound. And a lot of the discussion at the neighborhood meeting and comments in Mr. Mann's e-mail regarding the access entry drive here at the, quote, front of the store and the limited area for driveway and circulation that accompanied that. In the original site plan that was presented, this was a different layout. There was parking stalls across the entire front of the store. Following that meeting, we did take a look at this and remove the parking stalls. As you can see, the large green area -- my mouse is gone -- large landscape green area right here at the front of the store which allows this throat depth to be extended, in essence. So when people enter to the site, instead of facing cars backing up at them as they drive in, now they can turn left or right, stacking them further, and then continue into the site as they would wish, to the west or to the east. The other is operations. And any Home Depot store you've been to in the past, you know, the front entrance and exit is right in the middle of the store. There's a lumber canopy on the side with another entrance for the professional contractors that they typically use. In response to the site layout, maintaining the East Naples overlay intent, Home Depot looked at reorganizing their main entry for the professional contractors and putting it on the side of the building rather than the front. So that eliminated any -- any customer access or ingress/egress to the building from this area as well. All of that will occur on the side of the building. In fact, Home Depot re -- did a full re-layout of the interior of their building to accommodate this side entry, which effectively turns this into their front field for the professional contractors and customers that wish to come to the lumber and building material side of the building. And the parking on the side, the garden center actually facilitates that as well. A majority of the customers either pick which side of the store they would like to go to when they go to shop at Home Depot. There's not a lot of cross-traffic between the two sides. Customers that go to the garden center side have ample parking area and access in and out of the building as well. There was a truck circulation question as well. We have modeled full semi-truck delivery trucks through this property. I actually made quite a few revisions to accommodate those with island radiuses. The circulation is fine. In fact, Home Depot wants good, efficient operations as well on their property. So they ensured that we looked at that on their end as well. And this site plan facilitates truck ingress and egress from northbound on Tamiami or southbound on Tamiami. So it should work fine for the delivery trucks. I'll switch back to the visualizer just to see if there are any -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before you go again -- MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go back. You said the contractor entrance. That is also the entrance for the main entrance for the store? MR. WILLIAMS: There is still a traditional main entrance here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: Correct, but the secondary entrance for the contractors, which acts like a full second entrance point for customers, is on the side underneath this lumber canopy. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'm going to reserve questions. I'll wait for your -- finish what you're stating, because I'm going to have some more questions. MR. WILLIAMS: And just as a reminder, there is a full entry and point of sale at the garden center as well. So that facilitates a lot of customer traffic in and out at the garden center itself. I just was going to switch back to the visualizer to see if there were any specific comments that were in Mr. Mann's -- let's go to the visualizer, not the microphone -- in Mr. Mann's e-mail and layout here. I think we accommodated the majority of those. In fact, some of those -- some of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 95 of 102 the information was good for us to take back and redesign portions of the site plan with. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just to make sure, both the professional and the garden area has checkout there, too. So you can go in one door and go out the same door? MR. WILLIAMS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I figured that, but I thought I'd ask. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. In fact, they reoriented the point of sale for the lumber side to work better with that side-entry point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Quick question. Is it a requirement to have all three of those access points off of 41, or is it something you would like to do? I say that because the way the majority of the parking is set up, we'll call it on the east -- I guess the north and the south end of the property -- if you eliminated the middle access point, you have all the traffic coming into the two larger parking areas and no problems with cars that are parked up along 41 and people backing up because they've just accessed the property. I might be out of term here with what I'm asking. But if you removed that, we'll call it No. 2 access point, you still have 1 and 3. Is that something anyone would consider? Is there not enough egress for all the cars that are needed? Just curious. MR. WILLIAMS: No. That's a great point and something we've considered and looked at as we've developed the site plan for this in conjunction with working with FDOT on their spacing and driveway requirements. Two points I'd like to add. One is that, is we would -- originally would have preferred that driveway to line up with that left parking field; however, with this existing drive cut, there's not enough distance to put in proper deceleration lanes, and the spacing requirements between the access points per FDOT requirements would not be met. So that's as close to -- far to the west as we could push that drive, that center driveway. The concern with eliminating this, from a traffic perspective, too -- and we do have Trebilcock's representative David here as well if we need to talk further detail. You know, using this as, you know, 50 percent, we'll just say, of the traffic generation, keep in mind this is a commercial lot here. And I do believe there's an application in for this property as well for development of half of that with what I consider a fairly heavy use. I think bringing in all of Home Depot's traffic into another commercial property just to cut through their property would create a lot more congestion than what we see with this center driveway here. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: If that makes sense. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any more questions for Mr. Williams? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Would you go to -- or can the staff go to Page 1476, 1, 4, 7, 6. That's a -- I think that was a picture that was used in the neighborhood information meeting, and that gives a good perspective view. Because my concern is in the front. And I'm not talking LDC. I'm talking Joe Tent Peg human nature. MR. WILLIAMS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to drive there. There's no parking spaces in front. I see this nice long strip with the landscaping. I'm going to just park my car there to run in -- and that's it. MR. WILLIAMS: There you go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's kind of -- it's a better view -- more pictorial view of your site plan. So I'm looking at this and I'm saying, okay, have you accounted for fire access, fire lane? And what's going to prohibit where that -- you have that nice young gentleman 5.A.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 96 of 102 or lady, whoever that may be, on the sidewalk there. They're going to park their car right there, get out, and go into the store. Are you going to call the police every day? I mean, this -- this has the potential for disaster out in front of the store from a traffic management standpoint. Because human nature, I want to park in front of the store. And I even can say that from Lowe's. I know on either side of the store -- especially on the east side of the store, very few people park on that side of the store, which surprises me. Everybody, of course, wants to park in the front and cut across and walk in. Is this something you guys have looked at, human nature on customers coming and going to the store? There's only very -- there's very few parking right next to the door. And, again, I see that long strip of landscaping that has the potential to be quite a bottleneck. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is it true that there would be some "no parking" signs there? Because there are none in the image. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we can. This was more for a visual of the aesthetics of the building rather than an outline of the circulation. So, yes, we definitely can add some traffic management signs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I also believe it would have to be crosshatched as a fire lane. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schmitt, those are all Site Development Plan issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I realize that. I know. I realize it's a site-development issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I assure you, when we go through the Site Development Plan review, should we get that far, every one of these issues is going to be looked at. Home Depot spent a lot of time analyzing this site before they decided to buy the property to make sure it would function. They're in the convenience business, too. So they're -- they've looked at this, and Hamilton and the engineer will address every one of those issues when we get to the Site Development Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. The picture, it shows here as well that rather pretty significant depth off of 41. I mean, that's as designed and that's in consideration of what the public wanted. I mean, you are giving up a lot of space there, it appears. MR. WILLIAMS: You're talking about the throat depth of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, the throat depth of the -- MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, this is the throat depth, and then we extended it around on each side as well to make -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Let's go back to the site plan again, the overall site plan. MR. WILLIAMS: Of course. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. Again, I -- it's not part of the rezoning. I'm just saying, I have -- what Mr. Yovanovich stated, I trust that Home Depot has looked at this just as somebody going into the store and knowing if a customer turns right or left and what aisle they walk by and what they see. I mean, I know that's all studied in detail. This breaks from that norm a little bit, and I'm just concerned that the Home Depot has to be prepared. Because this is -- it's a tight fit. I'll be honest, it's a tight fit, and Home Depot has to be prepared to deal with making sure that that traffic flows in and out of this site smoothly, and that's right in front of that right turn -- right turn out. Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Williams? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Recognizing that there's still people here from the public who've 5.A.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 97 of 102 been here all day, and you've been here all day, obviously your staff's recommending approval of both petitions. Unless you have specific questions, we're just going to do -- if it's okay with you-all to do a brief overview of the petition and then opening it up to any questions you may have or the public -- we'll respond to any comments from the public. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do have another question, though. The interconnect with the property, as I'm looking at, on the left, that's already been coordinated? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We have -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that a proposal or it's actually coordinated? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have an access easement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You do? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I know -- I think I talked to Mulhere, and I asked -- I mean Bob. I think somebody's coming in with a petition. Was that Mulhere's? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Mulhere is coming in over on this piece right here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I thought he told me that. Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So if you feel the need of doing an overview, brevity would be preferred. If you don't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm fine, unless you want more detail. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me go back to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure you all have read everything, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me go back to the plan that was submitted by the public. All those issues have been addressed is what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything further for the applicant? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. We'll now turn to the staff for its report. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director. As the applicant had indicated, on both petitions staff is recommending approval. We've reviewed it against the -- or the accepted East Naples Development Plan and GMP and the LDC, and we are recommending approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And in the staff report it said there's no EAC approval required. MR. BOSI: None required. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. All right. Any questions or comments for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we will see if we have public comment. MR. SABO: Mr. Chair, we do. We have one public speaker, Rod Hansen, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Hansen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Either podium, sir. Or lectern, as it really is called. MR. SABO: Either podium. MR. HANSEN: Good afternoon. My name is Rod Hansen. I own the lot, or my family trust does, on the corner of Habitat and U.S. 41. So, basically, I'm on the other side of their natural preserve. That conceptual -- can we get that conceptual back up on the screen? So the left-hand side, I guess, it's the northwest, you say you have an agreement for access there. I don't see it connected, but you've got an agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong if you guys haven't just changed that empty lot to a C-4 car wash. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. MR. HANSEN: It's not approved? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know if it's -- you have to ask staff. We 5.A.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 98 of 102 didn't -- we didn't -- we didn't rezone it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe that's Mr. Mulhere's petition that's -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a petition coming in. MR. HANSEN: Is going to be a car wash? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We don't know. MR. HANSEN: Okay. So all the traffic is moving to the east. Everything's moving east one way. Habitat is a dead-end road. Collier County owns the land between Habitat and Barefoot Williams Road, so -- and if you want to know why you don't have grass and six to 12 inches of dirt on Habitat intersection, is it one dangerous intersection. I lose white corpuscles getting onto that road. It's hard to judge the traffic. This is what happens. I go by this lot to and from work twice a day. A minute before I got there, this lady on the right-hand lane, car pulls out of Habitat, she pulls into Habitat at 50 miles an hour, takes six to 12 inches of dirt off your swale, and her engine block is up in the bushes. Do you want pictures of what your intersection looks like? Does it matter? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, we're fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And your point is what, though? I don't understand, because this -- Habitat is not part of the petition. Are you talking about traffic? MR. HANSEN: Well, kind of -- I'm here for the -- I just want to be on the record for the SDP if they're going to hear my words, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yep. MR. HANSEN: Okay. Habitat's a dead-end road. And I have no problem with the Home Depot building. I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with all that traffic. What is that -- how many -- who's the traffic guy? Is it 500, 1,000, 2,000 cars a day? How many cars is it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You mean without regard to this application? MR. HANSEN: Well -- well, I'm just asking how much traffic is going to be going east on U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll find out. We'll get the -- MR. HANSEN: Okay. You'll get to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we'll get to that. MR. HANSEN: Oh, I'm not allowed to ask them questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. MR. HANSEN: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We can ask them for you. MR. HANSEN: All right. All right. Yeah. That's all I've got to say. All I can say is my property will be worthless. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And your property, for the record, is right at the corner of Habitat and 41? MR. HANSEN: Yeah, right on that -- right on the corner of Habitat and 41. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On the east side of that corner? MR. HANSEN: No, no. The east side -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's -- okay, that side. MR. HANSEN: That's seven-and-a-half acres. What they're doing there is they're putting in -- they're not happy with $14 million for the property, so what they're going to do is you guys will increase their density if they put residential over their commercial, so that's what they're looking to do. A lot of stuff going on at Habitat. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you very much, sir. Does anybody have any questions of the witness? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 99 of 102 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. If not, any further speakers? MR. SABO: No further speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone in the room who hasn't registered but wishes to speak, raise your hand, please. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we will close the public comment portion of this hearing and turn to Mr. Yovanovich for a rebuttal. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't -- I'm not really sure I understood the question about traffic. I'm assuming he's asking what our p.m. peak-hour trip is, and it is 241. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think he -- it sounded like -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It may be Mr. Sawyer needs to tell him how much traffic is on U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think he wants to know per day. MR. YOVANOVICH: The total per day? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: The net external is 3,228. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I'm coming from the east, Rich, and I'm going to want to go to Home Depot -- I can't remember. Is it -- at Barefoot, is that a signal -- signalized turn? Can I make a U-turn there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Coming from the east is -- this thing is -- you're coming this way? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm coming up. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to come right here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I'm going to have a left turn. I'm sorry. I did not see that, okay. So you've got an opening for a left turn there. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: There is a traffic light at Barefoot and across from the park also. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There is, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, again, I'm coming in -- and I'm on the garden side. I'm just thinking, because this is in competition with Lowe's, so you're back and forth. The Lowe's is right down the street. MR. YOVANOVICH: And just like -- just like it is at Naples Park. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Naples -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever that road is, Naples Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Naples Boulevard. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you can't find what you want at Home Depot, which you will, you might go to Lowe's. Who knows? CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything further, sir? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I think that was the question the public had. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think you're right. So it falls to us to deliberate and vote. Who would like to start? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I defer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mr. Yovanovich, did you say it was roughly 3200 cars per day in and out? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, that's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: In the -- on the segment. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's on the street, right? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 100 of 102 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Probably on the segment. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's on the street. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is us throughout the day. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: That's 3200 cars a day come in and out of we'll call it the two access points, possibly three. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it's 1,600. There's in and out, which would be -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. I understand. So 1600 times the vehicles coming in and exiting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Throughout the day. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Throughout the day. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the peak hour, which is what we measure, is 241, if my memory's correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? MR. YOVANOVICH: Keep in mind, I'm already zoned C-3, so I'm sure I could generate that much traffic with the existing C-3 uses if we wanted to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, and that -- you just reminded me. I'm going to ask another question, so I'll push my button. C-3. But could you build -- I don't know. Can you build a Home Depot under C-3 or no? It would have to be C-4. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I could, I wouldn't be sitting here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You wouldn't be sitting there. But you could build a C-3. You could build a big box store. MR. YOVANOVICH: A lot of stuff's in C-3. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In C-3. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But not a big box. That's C-4, isn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. It depends on the use. MR. BOSI: The hardware store had specific square-foot limitations, and the C-2 and C-3 zoning district, the -- I could -- I'll look up what the exact square footage, but they need C-4 to be able build to the size of the square footage that they're asking for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But on these lots, they could build multiple stores, could they not? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Look, there's no question that we could generate far more traffic with individual users on this property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. I would think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any other questions or comments from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just the -- for clarification, all of the improvements are developer responsibilities. Left-in, right-in, right-out, all that's the developer in coordination with the county? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is all site related. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, no. With approval, Mike, from the review, subject to review from the county? You may want to come up and clarify that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's been quiet all day. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's been too quiet today, I know it. Plus, he's got that wild tie on, so we've just got to have him come up so he can get on the camera. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. I just wanted to clarify that, yes, Collier County will be seeing the right-of-way permits for the project, and that will be part of the SDP. But FDOT is the -- yes. Actually, yes, it's going to be through FDOT that -- it's their road. So, you know, we're going to be using their standards. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 101 of 102 Minor clarification, but I just wanted to let you know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I think the time is ripe for a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, hearing silence, I'll make a motion again. I'll approve PL -- I recommend approval of both the GMP amendment and the accompanying condition -- or commercial PUD. That's PL20220000946 and PL20220000543, both petitions. I did not hear anything that was additions or stipulations, so it's as presented by staff and by -- and as -- presented by the commissioner [sic] and approved by staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded to approve both the GMPA and the PUD. 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. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is Robb still on? COMMISSIONER SHEA: He can't vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, he can vote. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I voted yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I assume he did. Okay. All right. So we are moving smartly toward conclusion. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's safe for us to leave, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it is. Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. No EAC approval on this one. Any old business to come before the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. Any new business to come before the Planning Commission? Anybody in the room who wishes to make public comment on any matter that was not on our agenda today, now would be the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, without objection, we're adjourned. ******* 5.A.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 1, 2024 Page 102 of 102 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:45 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. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 02-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 1 of 85 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 1, 2024 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 Paul Shea Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Robert L. Klucik, Jr. ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Kevin Summers, Manager of Technical Systems Operations Eric Johnson, Planning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 2 of 85 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, Mr. Bosi. Welcome everyone and pleasant good morning to you. The August 1, 2024, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission will now come to order. We'll begin. Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Secretary, would you please call the roll, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sir, we have a quorum, six out of seven. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Addenda to the agenda -- oh, I want to excuse the absence of Mr. Klucik who had another commitment. Then addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. There are no changes to the agenda today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting -- amazing we're going to have two in a month -- August 15, 2024. Anyone know if he or she won't be able to attend that meeting? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I will not be able to attend. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Hoping that we have a quorum. Then on September 5, we will not have a Planning Commission meeting because the Board of County Commissioners has its -- the first installment of its annual budget workshop. So we will not be meeting for a first meeting in September. And furthermore, our meeting that ordinarily would take place on the 19th of September is also not going to take place on that date because, again, of a BCC budget workshop, but we will be meeting on the 19th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Twentieth. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Twentieth, excuse me. On the 20th, and that meeting will be on a Friday. So please check your calendars and be sure that you don't show up on Thursday unless you want to attend the workshop, which you may well want to do. But please be with us on Friday the 20th. Does anyone know if he or she cannot make that meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll just have to change my tee time, that's all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you. Thank you very much. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 3 of 85 COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's probably true. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You drink tea? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Tee time is all day. All right. Approval of minutes, we don't have any minutes before us today. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***Public hearings, advertised. First on our agenda is PL20230017521, the large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment. These are some Growth Management Plan cleanup changes. It's a staff-initiated proposed amendment coming to us on transmittal, and it will come back again to us on adoption at a future time, assuming that it moves through the process, and so I recognize, with pleasure, Mr. David Weeks. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman, I was lit up. I've got one minor housekeeping matter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Given the schedule you just said, I think my last meeting is September 20th, and I may not do this, but if you don't mind, I'd love to be on the agenda for about 15 minutes, maybe less. I'm going to -- I'll tell you what I'm going to do. If I have time -- and I may not -- I'm going to try to come up with kind of lessons learned, you know, stuff that I wish I'd done differently or that I think I did well and I'm -- the purpose, really, is for whoever sits in my seat, if they care to, they would be able to read it and go from there, and then if I don't get to it on my "to do" list, then I'll just skip that 15 minutes, if that's okay with you, and if the schedule's not too heavy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's absolutely okay with me, and I'm sure it would be okay and welcome with all of us planning commissioners. So we hope that you do find time to prepare that. It will be educational for all. Now, the matter about to come before us is purely legislative in nature. No quasi-judicial pieces, thus no need for swearing in of witnesses or ex parte disclosures. And, again, I mentioned Mr. Weeks. Those of you who don't know, he's in an excellent position to offer us these cleanup items due to his long and valued service to Collier County Growth Management with an expert's closest-in view of the Growth Management Plan, and so the Chair's pleased to recognize Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I am David Weeks with Nova Engineering and Environmental, LLC. I'm a contract employee with Collier County. Mr. Chairman, what you already stated has covered probably half my presentation. There's not a lot to it. The objective of these amendments to the Growth Management Plan are to primarily add clarity and uniformity to the portions of the plan that are proposed for amendment. This is accomplished through restructuring, reformatting, making minor corrections, and the like. And the one thing I want to stress is what this amendment does not do. It does not make any changes to densities, uses, or intensities that are approved by the plan. These are, in staff's view, truly cleanup changes. Our recommendation is for approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I'm going to have a few small questions. It's nothing of any consequence, and I don't know if any of the other members of the Planning Commission as well. No one is signaling at this point. I will go ahead then, unless someone wants to go first. Again, no one is signaling. So all -- all really great work, Mr. Weeks, as always. And I note a sentence that is in the staff report, and I'm not at all disagreeing with it, but I want to -- I want to see if it's a complete statement of the definition of "cleanup." You, or whoever wrote this, said, "Cleanup is something that doesn't affect land-use intensities or residential densities." Certainly that's the case, but are there other -- are there other characteristics of cleanup, something that does not fall into that definition? MR. WEEKS: Not of a substantive nature. That phrase was not intended to be 5.A.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 4 of 85 restrictive. It does not affect uses, intensities, densities, development standards, and the like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that's not intended to limit the meaning of "substantive" or "material." It's just by example. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gotcha. Thank you very much. Let's see. I go to Page 16 of the staff report. I guess it's Page 16 of the agenda; Page 5 of the staff report. And there is reference in the second paragraph of No. 9 which pertains to the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. And in the second paragraph, it says, "The Density Rating System is not applicable to Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict," and you note -- in staff notes, No. 12, which are explanatory notes, it's stated that, "This is to add clarification that the Density Rating System is not applicable to this subdistrict which correlates to a change." And I guess my question is: Is this -- is this a change that is yet to come or already been put in place? MR. WEEKS: A change that's part of this amendment petition. Let me explain further. Under the Density Rating System within the Future Land Use Element, there are listed a handful of exceptions or exemptions to the Density Rating System. One of the things this amendment does is remove that list of exemptions or exceptions and instead, within each individual subdistrict, include that phrase or statement that the Density Rating System is not applicable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So the inapplicability to these sections, that's something that's already been voted on by the BCC? MR. WEEKS: It's already -- yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: It's already in effect. It's already true. So this is not -- it's not taking a subdistrict that's presently subject to the Density Rating System and changing that to no longer be. It already is not subject to it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. So this is really a conforming change and truly immaterial? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Something had already been done. Thank you. Now I go to Page 14 of the staff report, which is Page 25 of the agenda packet. And this has to do with the Airport Carlisle, and Subsection B, "allowable uses are limited to." This has been moved rather than added, right? Moved to this position from another position. My only question is really mostly really for confirmation purposes. All you did was move this. You didn't change any of the language, or if you did, please tell me how. MR. WEEKS: You're correct. It's just a relocation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: A significant amount of these amendments are restructuring and reformatting the text. In some cases, moving sentences; in some cases, moving whole paragraphs. But again, the language itself and its meaning has not changed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that on the record. Thank you. Okay. I don't -- this is not a strongly held point of view on my part, but at the beginning of the staff report, it was mentioned that clarity and cleanup are important. Grammatical changes have been made, which to me really is important. And so my question to you is, as we all know, and you especially, here in this county we refer to the Comprehensive Plan as the Growth Management Plan. My preference would be to call it the Growth Management Plan everywhere in the Growth Management Plan rather than relate back to the more generic term of Comprehensive Plan. Am I overlooking some reason why you use Comprehensive Plan? MR. WEEKS: The terms are interchangeable. Florida statutes use the term 5.A.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 5 of 85 "Comprehensive Plan," not Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand that -- MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- but we have opted to call it a Growth Management Plan pretty much everywhere else. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So is there any reason why we should default back to the statutory language for this -- for this piece? I can't think of any. MR. WEEKS: There's not. It probably goes back to the original adoption of the plan in 1989 where I suspect that there was the usage of both terms, and over time we've continued to maintain both terms. But to answer your question directly, no, sir, there's no reason to have a separate -- two separate terms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Would there be any objection from you or staff if we just make the conforming change and call it the Growth Management Plan? Because that's what we call it here in this county. MR. WEEKS: Not at all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I follow up on that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: David, I would just, in clarity then, and in the introduction or otherwise to make sure that you clarify, because the State clearly calls it the Comprehensive Plan. And in almost all of the statutory language it's referred to as the Comp Plan or Comprehensive Plan. So you'd probably have to put some kind of introductory statement in there that the terms are, in fact, the same or interchangeable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be fine with me, yeah. Thank you. And if you would do a global search of this document and catch all the changes so that I don't have to go through them one by one. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can I get a clarification? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So just as to the amendments that are before you, you want any reference to Growth Management Plan changed to -- I mean, Comprehensive Plan changed to Growth Management. Because we have a bunch of other elements, and this isn't a complete rewrite of the various sections he's cleaning up. So we will have both references in future. I want to make sure we're all clear and that we'll -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do understand that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's just that -- my philosophy is, let's clean up as we go rather than try and do a wholesale full LDC global change. And so here we are as we go, so we're -- it looks like without objection we'll be making that change, which I think is a good idea. All right. Okay. Then on Page 21 of the staff report, 32 of the agenda packet, the very top says, "The boundaries of mixed-use activity centers have been delineated on the maps located at the" -- and that's been deleted. But actually, we're not deleting the maps. We're changing the maps, correct? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So why would we delete this language? MR. WEEKS: Let me find that specifically. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's at the top of Staff Report, Page 21, and it's crossed out. MR. WEEKS: And, Mr. Chairman, are you reading from the resolution Exhibit A? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's probably what it is, yeah. MR. WEEKS: Showing strikethrough, underline, I believe you said? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 6 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Starting with, "The boundaries of mixed-use activity centers," that has been stricken. And it -- and there's a map series at the end of this, and there still is. It's just a different set of maps. So I'm not sure why we want to strike that language. Just -- it's a question. I don't know how else I can refer to this other than the page of the staff report and the page of the agenda packet. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask if you would please help me out here and look at the heading of the section, capital letter C, Urban Commercial District, and then immediately below that after short paragraph is No. 1, Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict. CHAIRMAN FRYER: On what page? MR. WEEKS: I don't have an agenda packet, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I apologize for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, look, if -- assuming we approve this, if it's the -- if there is a reason to take it out, take it out. If there's no reason to take it out, leave it in. It seems to me, since we're going to still have these maps at the end, that we want to refer to them, to give them the dignity of being an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan -- Growth Management Plan. Do you see where I am now? MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry, I don't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, let's keep moving. Maybe before we adjourn here, we can get confirmation. And if there's a reason to take it out, any kind of reason, that's fine. But if not, I think it should be left in. I have another question on that same page, and the stricken language says, "If choosing to designate a mixed-use activity center or portion thereof as a master planned activity center, the property owners within such mixed-use activity centers shall be required to utilize the master planned activity center process provided below." So my question, I guess, is we're talking about consolidating or possibly consolidating activity centers? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. The master planned activity center is a provision where if a property owner controls one or more quadrants of an activity center, actually, through the rezoning process, they are allowed to change the boundaries. An example would be at the north -- excuse me -- southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard where the Baumgarten PUD is located. Now, the original activity center boundary was a square, and through that rezoning application, they changed the boundary to a rectangle. Same acreage, but they changed the shape. And that's one of the things a master planned activity center allows. Another would be if an applicant controlled, say, two quadrants, they could actually shift acreage from one quadrant to another; make one smaller, make another one larger. That has occurred up the street here where Grey Oaks is located. They availed themselves of that opportunity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe what confused me is the use of the plural word "center." "The property owners within such mixed-use activity centers." Really, we're only talking about one at a time here, right? We're changing the boundaries of one. MR. WEEKS: In all likelihood, it would be one at a time, but there are multiple activity centers that are eligible to be a master planned activity center. I believe that's the reason for the plural. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I see what you're saying now. That's fine. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe I found where you were referring to earlier. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: The boundaries of mixed-use activity centers have been delineated on maps located at the end of this section. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Uh-huh. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 7 of 85 MR. WEEKS: It continues on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Uh-huh. I just wanted to know why it's being deleted. MR. WEEKS: Right. I think the reason is because it's no longer located at the end of this section. When the Comprehensive Plan -- Growth Management Plan was adopted in 1989, the activity center maps were physically located within the text. You go through half the text, and then you'll come across a series of maps, and then more text. They are no longer physically located within. All maps -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. MR. WEEKS: -- are separate maps. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good explanation. Thank you. Then I go to Page 33 of the agenda packet, 22 of the staff report, which is Mixed-Use Activity Center No. 7 provisions, and this is another global one that is grammatical in nature and wholly so. The phrase "is comprised of" has found its way into many places in our Land Development Code, and it's recognized as a colloquial in some dictionaries. But strictly speaking, the proper phrasing is either "is composed of," if you want to use passive voice, or "comprising," if you want to use active voice. And I have -- I brought this up several times over the number of years that I've been on this Planning Commission. Again, it's not something I'm going to fall on my sword about, but when we come in seeking to make grammatical corrections and I come across this, I can't help but mention it. Do you have any thoughts on it or staff or any other members of the Planning Commission? MR. WEEKS: My thought will be I'll consult with the County Attorney's Office, and if they concur, I'll happily make that change -- or don't object to it, I should say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's the pleasure of the Planning Commission. MR. WEEKS: I'll make that change, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Unless there -- without objection. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. And do a global search -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because it does appear in a number of places. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. Okay. This is on Page 35 of the agenda packet, 24 of the staff report, and it has to do -- it's under Section 2, interchange activity center subdistrict, and Subsection A says, "Dual Future Land Use Map designation." And I understand this concept. This is really more a question of curiosity than a suggestion for a correction. How common is this? I guess it's like dual overlays. MR. WEEKS: I would say this is unique -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is? MR. WEEKS: -- in our Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right here -- I mean, by "unique," this is the only place it would occur? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I mean, I don't have a problem with it. I was just wondering. Okay. And then I go to the -- Page 37 of the agenda, 26 of staff report, Subsection F, "Interchange Activity Center No. 9 provisions," and the first sentence says, "All new projects within Interchange Activity Center No. 9 are encouraged to have," dot, dot, dot. Well, Mr. Weeks, you and I lived through the "encouraged" language a few years ago and saw that it really doesn't have any legal meaning. I don't believe we should resort to a word like that because it's -- it 5.A.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 8 of 85 doesn't obligate anybody to do anything, really, does it? MR. WEEKS: It does not. It has no regulatory meaning. In this particular case, this is a relocation of the language that already exists. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, that's, I suppose, a pretty good argument. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the language is very clear in the LDC on the criteria for the -- especially -- what do you call it, No. 9. I mean, isn't the language pretty clear, all the architectural language? Activity Center No. 9 is very clear in the LDC on the requirements? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, the language may be fuzzy here, but it's clear and spelled out in the language of the LDC, my recollection. I haven't looked it up, but my recollection is very, very specific, especially for LDC -- or, I mean, Activity Center No. 9. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, you're correct, and this particular language is referring to a unified plan of development which typically is translated into either a PUD zoning or Site Development Plan, some way that ties a project into a whole. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the concept of unification's already in the LDC, Vice Chair? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't -- I don't know. I thought it was. MR. WEEKS: It is in the context I just explained, that is through a PUD zoning or my experience, the Site Development Plan, either one of which takes a project and pulls it together as a whole to create that unity, such as uniform architectural materials or signage or landscaping. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, over the last probably 10 years, I think there's probably been about two or three amendments in regards to Activity Center No. 9. MR. WEEKS: Oh, definitely. It's been modified, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's helpful, Vice Chairman, thank you. And I'm not going to ask for a change, because it's being moved, and a change would be subjective, so we don't want to do that. Thank you. That answers the question. Then on Page 33 of the staff report, 44 of the packet, it says, additional -- well, it's right above subsection large D, "additional TDR provisions." So this does not concern additional TDRs, but physically it is located immediately above that subsection, and it has to do with clustering. And it says -- and you don't even need to find this, Mr. Weeks, because I think once I explain it, you shouldn't have a difficulty with it, but of course if you do, you do. This is Section 11, and it had an A and a B. So we're taking out A and changing A to B -- or B to A. But my point is, is since there's only one subsection, we don't need an A at all. If you have an A, you'd expect it to be followed by a B or a C, and now it won't be followed by anything, so why not just take out the numbering, the A? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, my reluctance to agree with you was because you see the row of asterisks right below that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. MR. WEEKS: -- which is a text break, and what I don't know is if there are subsequent -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's a good question. And so if they were, they'd all have to be changed, too, and it's not -- that's not being offered to us. But it would be nice to see -- if someone could look at the LDC or, rather, the Growth Management Plan and verify that it would now just be sort of a naked Subsection A standing by itself. MR. WEEKS: Be glad to do that, and if it is standalone, then I would make the change you suggest, removing the letter A. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Yeah. And if it's not standalone, we probably should have seen the other ones, because they're being changed, too. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fair enough. All right. On Page 48 of the staff report, 37 -- excuse me, 37 of the staff report, 48 of the agenda packet, there's a sentence that says, "As noted above, approximately 585.13 acres are 5.A.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 9 of 85 designated as sending lands as shown on." And I guess my question is, if it's noted above, why are we noting it again? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, is this under the Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it is. And if you don't have an immediate answer, in the interest of time, I'll defer to you. If there's a reason to repeat it after we act on this, go ahead and repeat it. If there's no reason, in the interest of efficiency of language, take it out if it's already been said. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I can answer that question, I think. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: This particular overlay is related to a settlement that the county had, and as part of the settlement, there was a certain amount that had to be designated for sending, and that's why it's shown on the map. So I think that additional language relates to the display of the sending lands on the map. MR. WEEKS: If I could add to that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The preceding sentence makes reference to that settlement agreement, and in that settlement agreement, a specified number of acres was to be changed to sending lands; however, through the Comprehensive Plan amendment that established this overlay, a different acreage figure was changed from receiving to sending. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So that's to make clear the distinction between what the settlement agreement required and what actually occurred. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a satisfactory explanation for my purposes. Thank you. Then I go to Page 53 of the packet and 42 of the staff report. Again, the word "presently." The historical, sort of, Oxford English meaning of "presently" is in the near future, but some dictionaries now recognize the modern colloquial as a secondary meaning "at present." But that -- but that -- I think you're better off using "at present" rather than "presently" in No. 1, urban design -- urban designation, the third-to-last line where it says, "Not all areas presently receive central utilities." I would prefer to see "at present." It clears up an ambiguity. MR. WEEKS: Okay. I found it. Will do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. I go to 71 of the packet, 60 of the staff report. It says -- and this -- this is in the affordable housing bonus by right, and it says, "The Land Development Code shall be amended to implement this provision." Straightforward enough. This is a drafting style that I'm asking about. Has the Board of County Commissioners mandated itself in other provisions of the GMP to do something? If so, I'm fine with it. If this is new, then let's talk about it. MR. WEEKS: Yes, the Board has. There are instances where the Board has adopted language in the Growth Management Plan that will specifically indicate what they must do or shall do. In other cases it's "encourage" or, within a certain time period, "consider" and other more vague terms, but yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, thank you. That's all I needed to know. And I'm coming to the end here. Okay. That's all I have, and no one else is signaling at this point. I'll ask, any planning commissioners want to be heard on this? Okay. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a follow-up on some of the comments that you've been discussing. Just to make sure for the record, it does reference some changes to maps on the activity centers. Again, you said there are no changes that affect densities or anything like that. So the map changes aren't moving boundaries or anything like that? They're giving the ability to move the boundaries but not change the density of the activity center. MR. WEEKS: There are -- there's at least one instance of where an activity center 5.A.b Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 10 of 85 boundary is changing. That happens to be at the Airport/Immokalee Road intersection. It's a minor change on the north side of Immokalee Road north of Piper Boulevard. It's reflecting the PUD zoning that's in place. So it's aligning the boundary of the activity center, a minor adjustment to follow the boundaries of the commercial PUD zoning. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I assumed that was -- the answer was that it's not making any changes. But I just saw that section that said changes to the activity center mapping. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good question and good answer, yeah. Thank you. All right. So no one else is signaling at this point. I'm going to ask, do we have any registered speakers? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we have no registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Anything further from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, the matter then comes to us for action. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I make a motion to approve PL20230017521 with the subject -- or the amendments as discussed during this -- during the presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Weeks, for all your work. MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. ***Next, we will hear PL20230002800. This is the Golden Gate Golf Course MPUDA. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. 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? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ex parte disclosures from Planning Commission beginning with Ms. Lockhart, please. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record and a meeting with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had a brief question prior to the meeting with Wayne, that was it, concerning the size of the golf course. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 11 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Very good. And with that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold, a certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates. I'm here representing Collier County through our subcontract with Davidson Engineering. And I'm not sure Brian DeLony's in the room, but Brian DeLony's our contact through Facilities Management and can answer some specific questions comprehensively about the overall project if you have some. The project itself is -- really was initiated because of the veterans' nursing home and the progression that that's made. I'm sure you all have heard the Board of County Commissioners discuss their interest in having the veterans home here and the State efforts to get it to be located here. So this was initiated to really re-establish the location for the veterans facility. Once the BigShots golf course recreation complex went away as a use, this opened up the site to allow the veterans home to be relocated on the property, which necessitated most of the changes we're talking about, but there were a couple of other cleanup items that we wanted to take care of that, through the other amendments, we didn't have the luxury. If you recall, the last time you saw this project was for the possible conversion of the hotel to allow for residential uses on the old hotel property that is also part of the PUD. So we're making some changes, and I'll explain those as we move along. Okay. That's not advancing for me. I got it. Thank you. So on the screen is the image of the overall Golden Gate Golf Course master plan, and it stretches from Collier Boulevard on the east along Golden Gate Parkway and then south to the Golden Gate Canal. So the project -- part of project was in a special subdistrict that was created under the Golden Gate Master Plan, part of it then was part of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and then all of the property was rezoned to a mixed-use planned development. So today what we've done is incorporated some of those revisions to codify the document from the last 2023 amendment that dealt with the hotel conversion. We're asking for two new deviations relating to the golf course. We're relocating the public-use tract by essentially deleting it, and then we're relocating the community-facility tract that would have the nursing home. There's a greenway deviation that I'll get to in a moment. There's a pro shop deviation, which we're not sure, in consulting with staff, that were absolutely necessary. There's a provision that is in the golf course zoning district designation that limits the size of clubhouses. And in this facility that will house the nine-hole public golf course as well as the First Tee group that will have a training facility, they need a clubhouse that is a little bit larger than that standard. So we thought, out of caution, we would ask for the deviation so it was clear that somebody wouldn't try to relate it back to the old golf course zoning. As I mentioned, we're expanding the community-facility tract from 8.3 acres to a little over 26 acres to accommodate the veterans nursing home, and we've added a new access point for the nursing home on Collier Boulevard. And we've also revised some tree calculations that you'll see on our master plan. This, I think, was an initial -- this was the original intent-to-convert golf course project. This was the first one that has gone through the process, and they included all trees on the golf course as part of the conversion for tree preservation. That probably shouldn't have been the case, so we're going back and cleaning that up. So Ms. Cook and her staff took the tree inventory that was prepared for the project, isolated the areas that were converted from those that were not, and we came up with a new tree preservation count that's based on that analysis. So here's your approved master plan. And in the northeast corner of your page, which was really the northwest corner of the project, is the public-use tract. That's being deleted because that will become part of the golf course area, and then you can see the community-facility tract, which is in sort of the southern portion of the tract, and it's in this area. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 12 of 85 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sorry. North -- okay. You've got north is -- MR. ARNOLD: North is to your right, yes, sir. That's Golden Gate Parkway that's right here. So the community-facility tract is located here. And on the next slide, you'll see that the community-facility tract has grown significantly to come all the way over to Collier Boulevard, and then the public-use tract, which was up in the northwest corner of the site, becomes part of the golf course again. And then here's the new access point that we're adding for the facility, and it's envisioned to have an access point that takes it all the way out to Golden Gate Parkway. We have a lot of changes. I can go through as many details as you'd like to walk you through some of these, or I can just sort of make my way through the presentation and then come back as you all may have questions, whatever your preference. But I think, starting to look at the more specifics of the site, this is still a conceptual plan, but this shows you the latest concept image for how the veterans nursing home would fit into the project. So you can see its relationship to the hotel still keeping large portions of green space around it in this concept. This is the golf course routing plan that Arthrex provided to us that's going through review with the county, and you can see that they've now taken advantage up in this area that was the public-use tract, and they've re-established a couple of greens and fairway up in this area. And then this area down -- that connects next to the nursing home still remains part of the golf course, but it's largely going to be rough and a golf cart crossing for the carts to connect the two holes. And then the larger component that's going to be part of their project will be the clubhouse, parking, the First Tee organization, and then a driving range. And it's my understanding that the veterans home is being designed so that they can have possibly some use of the driving range from that side, too. So that would be a nice asset for them. And then -- so to bring it sort of all together, what you have is -- I showed you the nursing home, I showed you the golf course, and then going to construction in just another month will be the Renaissance project which was the affordable housing component that was previously approved for the project. So it is permitted and ready to go, and I think the Board has dealt with a couple of funding issues related to it, but it's really on its way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you dive into greater detail, which may or may not be necessary, I want to ask the Planning Commission how much detail we want to hear. I believe I'm thoroughly familiar with this project, and I'm not going to -- I don't think I'm going to have any questions or comments, but I don't want to preempt any member of the Planning Commission who might. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just have one question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to ask it now? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, since we -- just to kind of appease my mind here, when we did the affordable housing one, we had the environmental issue when we tested the soil. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When they tested the soil, did they test it on the whole site so we know this area here doesn't have any contaminated soil, or it's already in the plan to remediate it? MR. ARNOLD: One of the other things that's in here as one of our conditions that it's going to allow us -- technically, I think the county can do it, but they wanted to make it clear that fill can be removed from the site and taken to other county property. It's my understanding that there's arsenic in other places other than just under the affordable housing site. I believe they're capping it there, so they're bringing in additional fill to cap the contaminated soil. Not possible necessarily with the golf course or the veterans home, so there's a provision that we added that will allow for offsite removal of that material to other county -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But they haven't tested it to know what's there yet? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. DeLony is indicating that it has been tested. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 13 of 85 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And I'll give you more information if you'd like. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's fine. I just didn't want any surprises. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And good question, and that also reminds me that we're going to have to act as the EAC on this as well as on the LDC amendment. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wayne, the location of the driving range, it's fairly close to Collier Boulevard, especially -- I mean, seriously, most people who play golf know that the majority of people that have a bad swing typically -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Are you talking about me? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, you're left-handed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm talking about Brian's dad. Don't tell him I said that. Brian's dad and I served together in the Army, so we go way back. Is there going to be a net along there or some -- I would have to believe they're going to put up poles and a net, won't they? But it doesn't show on there. I'm just saying from an architect's standpoint, it's something you guys need to look at. MR. ARNOLD: Well, one of the things that -- if you recall, the prior plan allowed the BigShots golf facility, which is similar to a Topgolf concept, it was going to have large netting along there. We left the language in that allows there to be netting as high as 200 feet along that portion of Golden Gate Parkway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just wanted to -- MR. ARNOLD: Or it's Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it's typical a slice prone will be into Collier Boulevard, and so -- just so the folks know that there may be a net up there. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Joe, you never played with me. How'd you know that was my problem? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a question now. Is it -- does it allow for or require netting? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know the answer to that. We've made provisions for it. I think most golf courses do provide some sort of safety netting. There are standards for golf course design for errant tee shots, et cetera. So you lay out those templates when you design the golf course. And I don't know -- Brian, you may know more than I do about the Arthrex plan. But I would be shocked if they did not include some form of netting. It may not be 200 feet high, but there may be some form of netting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just don't want it to be a surprise. And it needs to -- the language needs to be in there because it -- that's the only place on the golf course that, I mean, could be a potential safety problem, especially to people on Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would staff have any problem if we added a condition that there be adequate netting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's only if the -- it's deemed required. I mean, that's up -- that's up to the architect. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, not a -- I'm not a golf architect or -- I don't -- who's the architect for this, you said; Arthrex? MR. ARNOLD: Arthrex -- MR. BOSI: Arthrex is the sponsor. MR. ARNOLD: -- is the -- yeah. Arthrex was -- was selected by the County Commission to be the golf course developer, and they will operate it under a foundation. That's my understanding. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 14 of 85 But the language that's there, it's on Page 179 of your agenda packet. It's Page 6 of 20 in the PUD document. And it's a footnote to the Development Standards Table that says netting and supporting infrastructure for golf driving range are exempt from maximum height limitations but will not exceed 200 feet, and then there's also a parking lot lighting standard as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I don't mind deferring to experts as to whether such a thing is necessary, but right now the language doesn't do that, and I think before we pass on this, we would want to either defer to an appropriate third party expert's opinion or put in a requirement of a condition. MR. ARNOLD: Well, the only thing I would say -- and I'll defer to the County Attorney's Office for this -- we're not specifically modifying that golf course Development Standards Table. That hasn't been something that's been proposed through the process. We are -- we're relocating the golf course tract to replace the public-use tract, but we were not necessarily -- I put this configuration in here for the benefit of you so you could see kind of the whole picture of what's happening for the overall project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I understand that, but the Vice Chairman raised a potential safety issue. I don't think we can just blow that off, whether it's existing language or not. MR. ARNOLD: Understood. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If the county's retaining ownership -- is the county retaining ownership, and then Arthrex is operating it? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the county does have control over the netting that goes in as the owner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In your view, is that sufficient for safety purposes? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I -- safety, there's two things. You get -- you worry about hitting balls. Well, I can tell you during Hurricane Irma, our safety nets came down, the whole thing. And I'd hate to see something -- so I think it needs to be appropriately designed not just to contain golf balls, but to weather a hurricane or procedures for taking it down before the hurricane comes, like you would do with a crane boom. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. When this was going to be -- when it was going to be Topgolf, Topgolf serious -- they have serious poles. I mean, you've seen it driving up towards Tampa, or even in Fort Myers. The driving range going down Collier Boulevard down towards Marco Island, the only -- the last driving range, that has netting up, and it did, some of it blew done, because it was up by wooden poles. But this shows trees along the side as well, and other golf courses do use trees to sort of mitigate and create a safety barrier, as I look at this. So I would -- again, I have to leave it up to the county. They're going to operate it. They're the one that -- somebody's -- if somebody has damage, the deep pocket is the county. That's who they're going to go after legally. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, but they don't have very deep pockets. Statutory limits, so you can't -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I have to say that it really has to be up to how they design this and the golf course architect who will describe and basically validate who signs off on this and validates whether there's a safety concern. I just noted it, because this is not the same location where the range was going to be originally. MR. ARNOLD: It's a little farther south. The other range was just a little bit farther north into the nursing home site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Where the nursing home is, right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I guess I -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I'd put language in there. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 15 of 85 COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's got the -- he's got the option. And if they deem it's not needed, then it's not needed. I'm not going to -- I don't think we need -- I need to stipulate that. It's required. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What about we add a condition that the county shall evaluate -- "the county itself, or through a third-party expert, shall evaluate the necessity of putting up netting and act accordingly," something to that effect. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Appropriately designed netting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, if I might? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: Staff just pointed out language that is in your general commitments for the project, and it's Item 1E of your developer commitments in the PUD document, and it says, "At the time of plat or Site Development Plan, the applicant shall provide errant golf ball netting or other engineering solutions for development in the golf course tract limited to the golf course and driving range. This shall include signed and sealed engineering drawings, including but not limited to, the proposed location layout plans, errant golf ball device design, and details to ensure that no golf balls exit the golf tract." CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's perfect. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Perfect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Thank you. I guess, thank you, Mr. Sawyer. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm done. They took care of it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, done also? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just wish there was more language on the structural part of it, but I guess that's a design issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So no one else is signaling. May I infer from that that the Planning Commission doesn't need to hear more detail, or do we want to hear more detail? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the third time, at least, that this thing has been before us. I think we're very familiar with the details. The changes are to accommodate the veterans home but also based on the direction of the Board of County Commissioners when they validated the potential lease for this, so I'm fine with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then let's see if we have any registered speakers and then -- MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we have no registered speakers that are in person. We do, however, have one person on Zoom. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Who is that person, please? MR. JOHNSON: His name is Mr. William Cannon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Cannon, can you hear us? Mr. Cannon? MR. CANNON: Can you hear me now? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Cannon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we can. Go ahead, sir. MR. CANNON: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Bill Cannon, 169 Fleur De Lis Lane in Naples. I've been following Golden Gate Golf Course conversion since it is the first use of the golf course conversion rules of the Land Development Code Section 5.05.15. In particular, I was interested in how Collier County, as a developer, treated greenways. I see in their current application, which is the one you're currently looking at, they asked for a deviation on a greenway total percentage of area. I also noted that the master plan submitted with this application had greenways of 100-foot width, 81-foot width, 69-foot width, and 29-foot width. I have followed many of the submittals that Collier County made on the development of 5.A.b Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 16 of 85 golf course -- Golden Gate Golf Course conversion. Have not heard any discussion of seeking approval of the less than 100-foot greenways from the Board of County Commissioners. This is allowed by the Land Development Code 5.05.15, Section G.2.A. The most I found was recorded, I believe, a PUD presentation to the Collier County Planning Commission wherein the presenter began to address greenways but was interrupted by a commissioner, and the discussion was never completed. I believe that this PUD was approved by the Collier County Planning Commission and subsequently presented to and approved by the consent agenda -- on the consent agenda by the Board of County Commissioners. My concern here is that if the nine 100-foot greenways have never been formally presented to the Collier County Planning Commission and the BCC, they should be listed as additional deviations in today's presentation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Mr. Arnold, did you want to reply? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. You and the Board of County Commissioners have approved the greenway configuration that's in place today. The deviation that we're requesting is simply because the public-use tract is growing in size. That technically would require additional greenway as a percentage of the site, but the relationship of the community-facility tract to any residential use doesn't change. The adding more greenway for the sake of other areas that aren't being converted made no sense to me and to your staff, and that's why we thought it was appropriate to ask for that deviation. The other configuration -- to talk about the dimensional criteria, there are changes that don't require deviations. The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to approve alternate designs for the greenway, and that's what they did in this case. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I noticed that the greenway provisions that are in this project are more stringent than what would become available to developers if we approve the language that comes up at the last agenda item. How would those two provisions live with one another? MR. ARNOLD: I'll defer to Mr. Bosi, who's had his hand in writing those new provisions. MR. BOSI: The new provisions that provide for the ultimate ability for the Board of County Commissioners to provide for deviations to what's being proposed is the same -- the same concept that's being -- that's embraced by this PUD. This PUD doesn't maintain as it -- when this PUD was approved, the requirement for the 100-foot deviation with a minimum 75-foot were in place. Those aren't maintained throughout this golf course. There's modifications. There's deviations that have been approved, originally, when it was amended previously, of last year, and as proposed today. So the ability for the Board of County Commissioners to deviate from what's required from the golf course conversion process has been embraced by this PUD at every turn that has been provided and before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I don't object to it in this situation because it really is more stringent than what we're going to ask to be approved, and I'll give you a preview. I have some real problems with the greenway -- the average greenway concept and the Board's so-called absolute discretion to change that, but we'll come to that in the last hearing of the day. But for purposes of this matter, I'm fine with -- I'm fine with that, and I'm going to ask if other planning commissioners feel otherwise. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I don't see or hear anything. All right. So from the back of the room, yes, please. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we do have one other registered speaker. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Who would that be? MS. ROJAS: Maria Rojas. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 17 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Ms. Rojas, when you come up, would you tell us if you've been sworn in, and if not, we'll take care of that. Have you been sworn in? MS. ROJAS: Not yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 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? MS. ROJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And state your name, please, and then we'd like to hear from you. MS. ROJAS: My name is Maria Rojas. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. ROJAS: And I'm here because it was new for me to receive the letter and -- you know, for the project. I'm very happy and grateful because the county is doing something for the community as, the -- you know, the affordable housing, the nursing home. And I'm very excited, and I do -- I don't know if I'm too far off. This is very new for me. When I see the plan in here, and I see this is beautiful -- and very, very happy. And my question is, we -- well, I think there are a few people. I own a few properties in that -- in the corner on the Collier -- in the Golden Gate Parkway. It's -- they used to be the hotel, you know, in -- but I -- this is -- I don't know. It later will be meetings where, you know, they're going to contact us, how the project is going to take care of the -- you know, is it -- because I was reading in here they're going to be removing everything and take care of -- I mean, using the land for the project. So I'm -- I don't know if I'm off. This is new for me, so I want to see if we'll be meeting later, how they're going to explain how is it going to go, the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And we'll ask for an explanation. Thank you for your questions/comments. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can she -- can you show us where your land is so we know just -- MS. ROJAS: You know the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can you just touch the map. MR. ARNOLD: I think it's right here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Upper right, I think. Oh, lower right. MS. ROJAS: I'm here and over here somewhere. I have a few -- 12 units in there. MR. ARNOLD: Ma'am, do you own part of the condominiums that are existing? MS. ROJAS: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Those are located -- and they're not part of the PUD. They're located right here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's that -- that's what I thought. MR. ARNOLD: It's another part of the project that -- not part of the project, but if you drive out there, you would think it would be part of it, but it was not part of the hotel complex and not part of the county's ownership. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that answer your question? MS. ROJAS: Yes. So that mean they won't touch those? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. No change for you. MS. ROJAS: So we get no changes. So we're going to keep those, and we don't have to worry about it? MR. ARNOLD: No, not as part of this action, not at all. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is she -- are you worried about what's happening around you or just what's happening to you? MS. ROJAS: No, no. Around, no -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MS. ROJAS: -- you know, but when I see that -- and I thought because it's going to 5.A.b Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 18 of 85 be -- you know, if the project is going to be expanding because it is all -- it's going to have beautiful buildings in there, and we're going to have it all, you know, hotel, whatever they call it before -- or complex in there, and we thought that it will be part of the other project. They're going to use the land to be able to complete the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for your questions and comments. They were good ones, and I hope you've been assured, then, that since you're not part of this PUDA, that it's not going to affect you. MS. ROJAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Heaven only knows what might happen in the future in another rezone hearing, but that's not -- that's not before us today, and nothing's going to happen as an outcome -- nothing's going to happen to your properties as an outcome of our action. MS. ROJAS: Okay. That's -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: If I can ask something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is your worry that the county may come and say we need to take your land? Is that -- is that a concern or -- MS. ROJAS: Yeah. Well, if will -- they will, you know, take our land, they're going to compensate to do something. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right, right. MS. ROJAS: That will be, you know, just up to the county. We don't have to -- you know, they have a project and people agreed to. And to do something better, you know -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. But I'm just trying to -- MS. ROJAS: Everything is welcome. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm trying to figure out whether you have a specific worry, or you just want to make sure you're kept -- you keep up with what's going on? And you have a -- are able to attend meetings, or did you have a specific concern? MS. ROJAS: I was -- you know, like, when I see the letter, I thought, but I have no idea what it was, you know, how is the project laid out, you know. They say they're going to -- I keep calling few people, and they say they're going to have a nursing home and couple things, or buildings in there. But -- and they say they're going to take whole -- the whole thing. That's why I say, okay, so I better go to the meeting and see what's, you know -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MS. ROJAS: Because we thought -- I thought they going to be -- they going to take the whole land, you know. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But now you understand -- MS. ROJAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- that it's not -- MS. ROJAS: They're not going to touch it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So you're good? MS. ROJAS: Yeah, I'm good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for being here this morning, ma'am. MR. ARNOLD: And Planning Commission members, I put back up the aerial photograph, you can see along Golden Gate Parkway there's a piece of the aerial that's not yellow. That's the condominiums that are not part of the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was confused because the other -- the other photo didn't have north up. MR. ARNOLD: Gotcha, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I see now. All right. I think -- I think we're wanting to save you some time. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 19 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: And any other -- I guess I should ask, there are no other registered speakers, I take it. Anyone in the room who has not registered nonetheless wish to be heard on this matter, now would be the time to raise your hand, please. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing. And the matter is in our hands for action, and our action would be both on the amendment to the PUD and also EAC action. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Seeing nobody, I will make proposal both as Planning Commission, and we can vote combined then and sitting as the EAC. I recommend approval of Petition PL20230002800, Golden Gate Golf Course PUDA. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It passes unanimously. Thanks to everyone. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is Brian here for the next -- make you earn your money. MR. DELONY: I do. I've got to go back and actually work. CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***Okay. The next matter -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Say hi to your dad. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And if the next matter goes longer than 25 minutes, we'll have a midmorning break just to -- everyone, give you a heads-up on that. So the next hearing will be on PL20220003008, the Palmetto Ridge 2 cell tower conditional use. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. 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? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Disclosures starting with Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon has no disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record and a meeting with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials, public record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Jahn, you have the floor. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 20 of 85 Uh-oh. It may take more than 25 minutes. MS. JAHN: Hopefully not. It's funny I was as -- this is Mattaniah Jahn, 935 Main Street, Suite C4, Safety Harbor, Florida, 34695. And I was actually discussing my love of paper with one of my witnesses this morning, and very early on -- not to take too much of the morning -- I used to come up with all these paper files and put paper under the Elmo until a friend of mine showed me a video of me setting up on the Sarasota lectern, and I just -- I was laying everything out. She said, "Take a look at this. Like, imagine how you look there. You're kind of in the last century." And then she remarked how ironic that was given that I'm a cell tower attorney. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. MS. JAHN: But, unfortunately, I can be a bit of an old soul. Anyways, I'm Matt -- as I said, I'm Mattaniah Jahn, and I have taken an oath. I have Bill Compton with Verizon Wireless; he has taken an oath as well. And Olga Maffeo, an RF engineer with T-Mobile, and she has taken an oath. As your materials state, I come before you today with staff recommendation of approval to allow a conditional use to authorize 180-foot-tall monopine-style communication tower upon Parcel 04171120002, and the parent parcel is partially cleared land and partially a single-family home that is owned by our landlord. And just to clear up parties, the tower company that is developing this is Bridger Tower Corporation. They are developing it on behalf of Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and AT&T. So we have three carriers who are planning to collocate on this tower. CHAIRMAN FRYER: With the potential for a fourth, I take it? MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. So I'm showing -- in all maps I show you today, up will be north unless I state otherwise. And I'm currently showing you a Property Appraiser aerial of the area around Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard. You can see Immokalee Road off to the west. It's the yellow -- it is the yellow line that curves off. You can see Oil Well Road running east/west, and then there's a white line that runs north/south. It's not as pronounced. That's Everglades Boulevard. And just to help give a little bit of a contextual primer for how communication towers work in the Estates, your code, when you open it up, encourages having towers -- places towers along these corridors. You have to have qualifying parcels in the Estates in that they have to have frontage along these roads. So you would expect towers along Everglades Boulevard, Oil Well Road, and the like. I've added a yellow arrow pointing to the approximate -- pointing to the location of the parent parcel, and that's located at the northeast intersection of Everglades and 31st Avenue Northeast. As we get in closer -- and this is a closer Property Appraiser aerial -- the parent parcel is highlighted in yellow, and I am applying a yellow arrow. You can see Oil Well Road running east and west, and off to the northeast, you can see the Sky Sail RSA project. Way off to the east outside is Big Cypress, and then immediately to the west of our parent parcel -- and our parent parcel actually runs under half of it -- is Everglades Boulevard. So to the north are ranchettes on Estates lots, and you have 33 Avenue Northeast and then Oil Well Road. And, of course, as you go north, you've got some retention ponds and then more ranchettes in the Estates. To the south you have 31st Avenue Northeast, and then ranchettes in the Estates. Of course, as you go to the east, you move to non-qualifying parcels for tower purposes, and that's all ranchettes in the Estates, and as you go west, you hit Everglades Boulevard, and then ranchettes in the Estates as you move further out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What does the term "ranchette" mean? I know what a ranch house is. MS. JAHN: I apologize for the colloquialism. It might be a Midwestern influence from spending summers in Crawfordsville, Indiana. But, basically, a ranchette is a small house -- a 5.A.b Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 21 of 85 small house by today's standards. I mean, you can go out to Atlanta and find mansions that are huge, right? But are houses that are on a bit of land, so you've got some space around you. So you could have outbuildings or the like, but they're not particularly farmland, per se. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: And then here's our closer view. Again, you can see the houses on those -- you can see those houses on those Estates lots, and you can see the extra space, which is why I'm referring to them as ranchettes. This is the landlord. The landlord owns this house off to the west. It's my understanding that his daughter actually lives there. The area to the east is the cleared land, and the middle of that is where you're going to see the monopine. This is your zoning GIS just showing that we're zoned Estates. And then your future land-use designation is Estates as well. I'm now showing you Sheet Z3 from the parent -- from the plans on record. And, of course, this project qualifies as an essential service for -- under your LDC because wireless communication providers provide 911 locationing services. So all three of the service providers that will be collocating on this tower are part of the E911 system and then, of course, you may have -- you may recall from prior presentations that AT&T is part of the FirstNet network. For anyone needing context on that, FirstNet is a federally encouraged public/private partnership for basically creating a secondary first responders network as a backup to your 700, 800 megahertz system. So it basically has phones that connect on separate channels for first responders only. Of course, this area is a known dead zone. Just, again, providing my own personal context, when I was here before you back in 2021, I believe, for the Green Boulevard tower -- it may be 2020 -- the area in and around Oil Well Road was showing up on the news as a dead zone. There it was more -- because the concentration was more around the Publix off by Immokalee Road, that's where more of the complaints were, but this area is a known dead zone, I would respectfully submit to you. The monopine provides the required 50 percent tower height separations from Estates-zoned land. And basically the way your tower code works, as it -- as it stands today is that if this was an uncamouflaged tower, you'd have to provide 100 percent tower height separation from residentially zoned properties, so the Estates-zoned properties. And if you go camouflage, such as the monopine, it becomes 50 percent. So to the north, you have 147 feet, or 1.6 times tower height separation. To the east, 197, or 2.1 times -- I'm sorry. Not tower height; 2.1 times the code-required 50 percent separation. To the south you have 177 feet, or 1.9 times the code-required separation. To the west, you have 477 feet, or 5.3 times the code-required 50 percent tower height separation. Just to take and also discuss this -- unfortunately I'm using that word "context" again -- within the context of your code specifically in spirit. If you were to look at this comparing to the 100 percent tower height separation, when you look at it, while it wouldn't meet it to the lot lines, it would exceed that separation to the nearest residential structures in all directions with the closest residential structure being the house that the landlord owns on that -- on his own property. So this meets both the letter -- I would respectfully submit that this exceeds both the letter and the spirit of your Land Development Code. You will notice that there is a square in the middle that's white. That is the equipment compound, and there is adequate space for up to four carriers. It is enclosed by an 8-foot-tall concrete, architecturally finished masonry wall as required by your code. And then around that, you can see a shaded area; that is the code-required 15-foot landscape buffer. In the very middle is the monopine, in that little circle, and then you can see a wider circle. That is a hundred and -- that is 130-foot fall zone radius. And just for the benefit of the record, fall-zone technology is essentially a pre-engineered crimp point that would allow the monopine to fold over upon itself. I'm not reinventing any wheels here. This is known technology. Usually 5.A.b Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 22 of 85 I -- the story that I give for an example of that are the interstate lights on Kings Highway when -- in 2004 when Charley came through, all those lights were folded over at the same height because they all had fall-zone technology to keep them out of the travel lanes. This is just a closer view of the compound to show that there's adequate space for four carriers. Of course, Verizon's equipment is depicted. You can see also around it a darker gray line. It's not quite as evident. That's the concrete wall. And then outside of that is the code-required landscape buffer. This is an elevation of the monopine just showing that it's designed as a tree. I'm not really bringing any new designs into this. This is the -- I would respectfully submit, or I would hope that it is a known quantity at this point in Collier County. It's been deployed at the Wilson Professional Center as well as at 4111 Green Boulevard in my personal experience, and it also came before the HEX at Cracklin' Jack's. Essentially, the design is a monopole underneath that's been structurally -- that's been designed to be beefier, essentially, and larger, so that way cables are routed inside of the monopine itself, and then it supports a pre-engineered foliated canopy that extends to the top of the -- that extends up in the top -- the upper portion of the monopine. The antennas are nestled on platforms, nestled inside of the canopy itself, and then the antennas are also covered with socks that are foliated to help them better blend in. And you can see that there are four -- there are four collocation centers. You have Verizon and then, of course, AT&T and T-Mobile shown below. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea has a question. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just so I understand -- so there are no support wires with this? MS. JAHN: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And there's no break in the mid -- so if it goes down, the whole thing, it goes down the entire length of the height, right? There's not a break -- a weak point created in the middle of it so if it was going to go down during bad weather, if it would break in half or something like that? The whole tower would go down. MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. And I apologize for lack of clarity. That is not the case. This is designed with a breakpoint in it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, it does. Okay. MS. JAHN: Yes. So, essentially, the -- it's designed to fold over and be contained within 130 feet of the base. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: This had -- just to provide a little bit of history on this site, it had originally been a lattice-style communication tower, and as a product of our neighborhood information meeting that we held in February, we were asked to convert to a monopine. I took three months talking that through with Bridger and the carriers, and we're happy to be able to say that we have come back and are providing a monopine instead of a lattice. Just as a very quick reference, the Olympics are going on. You know the Eiffel Tower. Lattice is, like, a less pretty version of that. Running through photo simulations. So this one is from the intersection of Everglades Boulevard and Oil Well. You can see the monopine sticking up there. You can see it from -- the next view is from 33rd Avenue Northeast looking south. My fourth location is 31st Avenue Northeast, and this is looking north up the driveway. My fifth location -- and I did skip my third. I apologize. I can dig out -- unfortunately, this copy doesn't have the third version, or the third simulation, which is down the street, which basically shows the monopine sticking up over the canopy, but you can't see the base. Location 5, Everglades Boulevard and 29th Avenue Northeast looking north. Location 6, you can see the house that's owned by the landlord in the foreground. This is 5.A.b Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 23 of 85 at the intersection of Everglades and 31st and then as you move further away Everglades Boulevard to the west looking northeast. And then this is from Oil Well Road looking southeast. Moving into RF need, the monopine is designed to support four carriers, and this monopine has three initial carriers, as I stated before: Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile. So I'm currently showing Verizon's existing tower map from the RF package that is on file, and you can see that there's a number of towers labeled A through I. And this shows the location these neighboring towers are trying to serve. They're trying to serve this portion of the Estates, and this might also help explain why there's still a dead zone here. So you've got locations -- the handoffs are pretty far away. You're up on Immokalee Road after it goes east/west, you're out in Ave Maria, you're out east of Ave Maria. As we move around south, you're down towards the south end of the Estates down near -- there's a test track down there near the interstate. Of course, you have the Naples Park tower. You may remember that from a few years ago. And then you have sites over towards the east. One site that's shown as Z with a red dot is the Golden Gate Boat site, and that one, my understanding is that it's still in your Site Development Plan process, so it hasn't come on air yet, but we have shown it in our propagation maps to show that once it's on air, it wouldn't solve this gap. So this is just Verizon's general area based on their network conditions today where they could place the monopine and be able to meet their gaps or meet their RF objectives. Of course, you overlay that with T-Mobile and AT&T and end up with a location that works for all three. So here is Verizon's -- here's Verizon's proposed coverage, and they're currently showing capacity band. That's what takes and catches all the traffic, and that's very important as the Estates continues to build out. So you can think of it much like how Orlando's -- or Orlando residents think of I-4, right? Coverage is the fact that the interstate's there. Capacity is whether it has enough lanes or managed traffic solutions on it to actually handle the traffic, and that's the concurrency battle that the carriers are always fighting, just like you are fighting as the county continues to grow and expand. Again, you can see the neighboring towers. So we've got Immokalee Road. We've got our two Ave Maria towers. The one off to the east is the one that is carrying the capacity bands. And then as you move around south, of course, you've got the one down by I-75, Naples Park. You can also see where Golden Gate Boat will be. So this is just showing the network as it stands. And then you can see the network showing it with the -- with the Everglades and 31st Boulevard, the Palmetto Ridge 2 tower with the blue dot. And you can see that coverage greatly improves along Oil Well Road and as you proceed south into the Estates, which is where you're trying to serve, and you can also see Golden Gate Boat off to the southwest. AT&T has stated that they're supportive. They provided the area where they are willing to -- where the tower would work for them, so this is their search area. It basically centers on the intersection of Everglades Boulevard and Oil Well Road. Unfortunately, they didn't give me coverage maps, so I don't have color-coded maps for AT&T to show you, but I do have their letter of intent and also their search ring showing their place -- their -- what you would have previously called a lesser effective radius. And then we have T-Mobile. So you can see T-Mobile -- this is a map showing T-Mobile's network, and you can see that they're basically on the same towers as Verizon. You know, you're over by Oil Well Road. You are up off of Immokalee east/west, Ave Maria east, down by the test -- I'm going to continue to call that the test track site, and I apologize. Of course, our proposed tower is the red marker. And, you know, you're looking at distances ranging between a minimum of 3.6 miles and a maximum of 9.04 miles with 5. -- 5 and a half up to the northwest and 8 and a half down to the southeast. So these are pretty far spread apart. This is AT&T's existing coverage, and this is showing their 4G coverage is trying to get signal out there, trying to put the road in, essentially. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 24 of 85 And green is reliable, and blue is no service. There's some signal that the phone can see, but it's not usable. And you can see where the tower's located. The area around it has no signal. There might be some that would register, but it isn't usable, and then the rest just isn't. There's nothing. And then you can see the proposed coverage, and you can see the area -- this portion of the Estates picks up strong coverage. Are there any questions on the RF materials at this point? I do have my RF engineers available. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just have some general questions. And, you know, as an old lawyer, you know, part of my job is coaching and mentoring folks at my firm. So I want to -- I appreciate good legal work. You're extremely well prepared and, you know, I think we need more land-use lawyers in this town, and you're -- you just -- you're very organized. But one of the problems with somebody as efficient and organized as you, you throw out a lot of information. I was having a hard time keeping up because I didn't prepare well enough for this. So I want to cover stuff you've already covered, and it's really just about safety and maintenance. So the breakpoint, it will drop 130 feet. Maybe -- I don't know, maybe pull up whatever slide you want to put up, because I just want to talk about distances and safety. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So I'm going to start by taking -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's a good one, yeah. MS. JAHN: -- us back to Sheet Z3. And I don't know if this will let me zoom in. Maybe if I step out of -- actually, there might be a zoom button here. All right. So we're on Sheet Z3, and I'm zoomed in on the eastern side. Where may I start, sir? COMMISSIONER VERNON: And 1.2, is that the closest one? You have, like, four green spots. MS. JAHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So 1.21 is the closest one? MS. JAHN: The closest one is actually the landlord's house, but -- he's the landlord. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But he's approving of this, so I'm not worried about him. I mean, he likes it. So let's talk about the 1.2. Show me what -- it's going to break, and where is it going to land? MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So 1.2, it's 222 feet. The monopole is 180 feet, so it's physically impossible -- even if it did not have fall-zone technology, it would be physically impossible for that monopine to reach the house. It would have to cartwheel. And I would respectfully -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: But you could reach their property line, though? MS. JAHN: It could, if it did not have fall-zone technology. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Which is, when you say "fall-zone technology," it breaks in the middle, as Commissioner Shea said. MS. JAHN: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. What -- what is to keep it connected if it breaks in the middle? MS. JAHN: So it has to do with the way the thickness of the wall is engineered and, essentially, it's a crimp point. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MS. JAHN: So it's -- basically, in that spot, the stresses cause it to fold. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So it doesn't just snap off and -- MS. JAHN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: What is the -- estimate, if you know. What does the 5.A.b Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 25 of 85 whole thing weigh? MS. JAHN: I don't know the weight of it. I could, if you wanted to take -- if Chair Fryer wants to take that midmorning break, I can probably call up a project manager and figure it out. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let's -- let me see if we can get through it without that, and if everybody else wants to know, too, we'll do that, but -- MS. JAHN: Understood. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So it's a crimp, so it's not just going to fly off. MS. JAHN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then the other thing is less important, but I don't understand the concept of, well, if you make it pretty, we're going to reduce the safety distance, which seems to be what the rule is, I think, if I understand it. But that's not for you to answer. But I do have a question: What does this thing look like in 10 years? Do you have a duty to maintain it? Is it going to look like a 10-year-old metal thing that used to look like a tree and now looks worse than just a pole? MS. JAHN: Yes. So that's a very good question. And, of course, the monopine design, you know, came from -- the monopine design came as a request of our neighbors. I'm sure Mr. Bosi can discuss the separation being a matter of compatibility as opposed to safety, given fall-zone technology. But to get more dialed into the canopy, there usually is a re-foliation requirement. And you did so on the Green Boulevard tower where you put a provision in there saying that the foliage will be maintained, and then that way your county code enforcement could act on that as a violation of the conditional use. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do we have that in your proposal, or do we need to add that if we want that? MS. JAHN: You would probably need to add it to the face of your conditional use, but we would not object to that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then I know you covered this, but again, you were throwing out a lot of great information, very efficient, in your presentation. It showed you prepared so well. But what's the barrier between the lot lines of that -- all of them, but let's just focus on this one we're looking at. What's the barrier there between the lot line, if any? MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So at the base here, you have -- of course, you have the monopole shown in the center, and then you have the white square, which is where your equipment would be. And I'm taking your question to ask about what's between this white square and the -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I'm saying is there a wall -- again -- MS. JAHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is there a wall -- move to the right -- where the lot line is between the house and the property? There you go. Right there. What's there, if anything? MS. JAHN: From -- there is -- as was stated from the gallery, there is a fence there. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Currently. MS. JAHN: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Like a 6-foot -- what kind of fence? Do we know? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Chain link. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And who maintains that? Whose fence is it? MS. JAHN: That one, I don't have an answer -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's not yours or your client? MS. JAHN: It's -- no, sir. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's the landowner's. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Got it. Oh, the landowner, which is the -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay with this. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I know it's not -- 5.A.b Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 26 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is Ms. Jahn back there? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's okay. You're actually helping. So I'll save that. She's -- I think she's going to speak. So -- all right. I think that answers all my questions. MS. JAHN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. At this point, I do want to take our midmorning break, as I warned everyone before we started the hearing. So it's 10:32. We'll be in recess until 10:42. (A brief recess was had from 10:32 a.m. to 10:42 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi, for keeping us on clock. I appreciate that. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats, and we'll continue. Let's see. Is Ms. DeJohn -- Ms. Jahn, rather, you have more to say? You're welcome to. MS. JAHN: I do. This is Mattaniah Jahn, again, for the record. And just in the break, just to help follow up on at least one of the questions about maintenance of the canopy -- and I apologize. This wasn't registered on my radar earlier, because I treat it as my mind filed it away. Your proposed resolution that is in your staff packet actually already has that as a condition of approval on Exhibit C. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The re-foliation? MS. JAHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, good. MS. JAHN: And that's the same condition as was placed on -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: What does it say? How often or as needed, or is it -- what are the words? MS. JAHN: Bridge Tower Corporation, its successor or assigns, shall maintain the tower as a monopine-style tower including, but not limited to, tree branch canopy in good condition/repair in accordance with the appearance and condition at time of installation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's good. MS. JAHN: All right. So, of course, I've taken you through the fact that I have three carriers, I've shown you the service maps for Verizon with red being unreliable service and green being reliable service, and, of course I've shown you T-Mobile's maps. That's based on 150 feet -- their antennas being at 150 feet, which puts them at the third collocation. Just as housekeeping, and then I will step down so you can move on to hearing from the public. Of course, we held our NIM on 2/8/24. There's a one-mile notice radius. Fourteen hundred recipients. I had 13 attendees. We had a variety of topics discussed. The biggest thing that -- the biggest action item that came out of that for me was a request to change to a monopine, which we are happy to say that we are able to provide. We revised that design and submitted it in May. You'll notice in the record that there's an analysis of properties researches alternates. That goes back to before this was camouflaged, just to show that they did research in the area. And then you have your wellhead map. Let me see if I can get out of here. And it went right back the way it was supposed to. We are not in the Collier County wellheads. I skipped that. Okay. We do have Mosquito Control approval, and I'm also going to just finally close with the 911 statistics for Collier County, and then I also have Orange County. In 2021, 84 percent of all 911 calls in Collier County came from wireless numbers. That's not including SMS, which is text. So that's a conservative number. And then Orange County is 89 percent, just to help show an across-the-state picture, at the risk of saying "context" yet again and turning my presentation into -- and saying -- to use "context" too many times in my 5.A.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 27 of 85 presentation. I would respectfully submit that underscores the importance that this serves in our everyday life and why these are essential services. With that, Bridger Tower Corporation, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T would respectfully request that you recommend this monopine to the Board Of adjustments as proposed -- as shown in the staff report and proposed by staff with staff's proposed conditions of approval, and I adopt those all into my presentation by reference. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Great presentation. Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Wellfield Protection Zones, can you go over that real quick. What is it, and why is it diagrammed the way it is? MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So Wellfield Protection Zones are areas that different jurisdictions have. So in my home county of Pinellas County, we have Wellfield Protection Zones up on the north end of our county. And, basically, it's where municipal wells are. And when you look at your wellfields, what's out there, I believe, is the City of Naples wellfield, and what you're trying to do is prevent pollution into the wellfield. So things like you wouldn't -- you probably would not want to put an oil refinery in a Wellfield Protection Zone. You may be cautious to put a gas station or a field depot in a wellhead protection zone. Communication towers get a closer look when they're in wellhead protection zones because that our -- our foundations work in order to make them hurricane resistant is that they drill a caisson down into the earth about 30 feet to take and anchor the tower. So in those situation they look at it a little closer, and usually also when we're in Wellfield Protection Zones, generators are required to be propane. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. There's no -- there's no issue with RF contaminating those wells? MS. JAHN: No, sir. That is not an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's not an issue, okay. Because that's kind of what I wanted to go through is because I -- in researching some of this, I see that there's a lot of municipalities across the country that don't allow cell phone towers within, you know, a thousand to 1600 feet of homes or schools, and we're obviously a lot closer than that, and I'm trying to understand, as these things go through, what your stance is on that. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So actually the most restrictive jurisdiction in the state of Florida from separations, as far as I've observed, is Orange County, and they have a seven times tower height separation which if you go camouflage you can reduce in half. And then if you're down at 140 feet, it is -- it goes from five times tower height to two and a half. So you're talking about being 2- to 300 feet away, so in the range of what we're talking here from structures. So I don't know where the thousand-foot separation comes from, but I'd respectfully submit that doesn't come from sound planning programs in Florida. I would also, just so I'm not remiss, just put into the record that the Telecom Act of 1996, of course, prevents local jurisdictions from making -- regulating communication towers upon the environmental effects of RF emissions. That said, what you can ask is, "Will these comply with the safety regulations and the like?" And I will actually now have both of my RF engineers come up and confirm that Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile operate their networks in compliance with those, with the FCC regulations. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's an interesting point. So if local jurisdictions can't stop a telecommunication tower, how come you have school districts, like in Palo Alto, that did not renew their leases for cell phone towers? How do they get around that? MS. JAHN: Yeah. So they're making a decision as a proprietary property owner, and there is -- when you go into telecom act case law, right, there is a distinction between the county 5.A.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 28 of 85 acting as a regulator of land uses of lands not owned by the county and the county making a decision as a landlord on whether a use is the proper fit. And where you see those, those are decisions where they're deciding whether to allow or renew a lease. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. I'm just trying to get as much clarity on this as possible, so I appreciate the depth of that. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's all I have for now, Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I understand what you said, and I -- this is just a comment. But I talked to the staff, and it just seems -- this is not your issue, but it's crazy that a local government can't protect its citizens if -- and I'm not suggesting that it is harmful, but it's -- to Chuck's point, it's -- it's crazy that that law is in place, but I do understand it's in place, and we have to abide by it. And I'm not suggesting there is anything dangerous about it, but it just -- it's weird. And now I understand why Chuck's saying "I give you examples," because if you're a landowner, you're not really regulating. You're just making a decision. And we're not landowners in this case. MS. JAHN: Correct. And -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's all about 911, really. I mean, that's what's made it an essential service. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, and I do understand that. But it looks like there would be some discretion in the local authorities, and it appears there's none. That just seems odd to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's some on aesthetics. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But not -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not on RF. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. MS. JAHN: And for what it's worth, there are -- if you go out -- and I do believe it's the Palo Alto tower, there was a tower that Sprint removed because of -- out in California because the lease was not renewed. And then it turned out that the issue that was getting everyone worked up was actually groundwater pollution from a Nestle plant making decaffeinated coffee. So, you know, the FCC regulates RF emissions and keeps things safe there to the point where I would respectfully submit to you from my personal experience, not making a statement on behalf of the carriers, you see more energy from the fluorescent light over your head than from a tower. And that's why we talk about aesthetics and compatibility. My apologies. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And to follow up to that, Palo Alto wasn't the only one. You had Portland, Oregon, school district, and then you also had, in Maryland, there was another one that have all done the same thing, and then -- I mean, this was just a simple search I did online, and I pulled this off of Environmental Health Trust, which obviously is not a big fan of cell phone towers. So I bring that forward only to question it because I want to try to get as much clarity as possible, because I don't want to -- I understand, as Commissioner Vernon said, you know, the county, we can't try to help protect our citizens because this land is owned by somebody else. So it's allowing them that conditional use, and it is about 911, which is where that comes from. But what I want is as much clarity as possible as to any type of risk that we're possibly putting in front of the public. So that's just kind of where I stand on that. Thank you. MS. JAHN: Understood. All right. I'm going -- would it -- at this time, I'm going to have my RF engineers testify that their networks comply with the FCC safety regulations. Okay. All right. I'm going to start with Ms. Maffeo. So ladies first. Please state your name and address for the record. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 29 of 85 MS. MAFFEO: Good morning. Olga Maffeo is my name. My address is 10818 River Glenn Drive in Boca Raton, 33428. MS. JAHN: All right. And do you work for T-Mobile? MS. MAFFEO: I do work for T-Mobile as an RF engineer. MS. JAHN: All right. And what is your education and experience? MS. MAFFEO: I have a bachelor degree in engineering. MS. JAHN: All right. And are you familiar with this tower that we are referring to colloquially as Palmetto Ridge 2 at the -- in Collier County at the intersection of 31st Avenue North -- Northeast and Everglades Boulevard? MS. MAFFEO: Yes. Actually, I approved that location for our network. As a matter of fact, we need that tower because all that area, it has a lack of coverage, and we have many complaints about it, and we're aware of the need. MS. JAHN: All right. Does T-Mobile operate its network in compliance with FAA -- or FCC safety regulations? MS. MAFFEO: We do. Basically, that's our main concern when we -- you know, we follow all the directions from the FAA. The frequencies that we use have to be at exact frequencies and, you know, at the levels that they tell us to do. MS. JAHN: All right. Thank you. MS. MAFFEO: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jahn, we can stipulate that your other witness would say the same thing if you want us to. MS. JAHN: Thank you. And, again, I would remind the Board of County Commissioners as Ms. Maffeo just -- or the Board of Planning Commissioners, that, you know, as Ms. Maffeo said, there's calls being dropped out there, and there is a life-safety-welfare aspect for -- for the general public in that regard because we have disconnected our corded lines so much, and that's before we get to the everyday operating my life, you know, connecting for classes, for phone calls, et cetera. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher and then the Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I actually had a question for your engineers. What is their experience with the 5G antennas that they can mount on light poles and those type of things? What's the difference between that technology and what you're presenting here today? MS. JAHN: Okay. I'm going to bring Bill Compton up. Please state your name and address. MR. COMPTON: Yes, absolutely. William Compton, 7701 East Telecom Parkway, Tampa, Florida. MS. JAHN: And what is your line of work? MR. COMPTON: I'm an RF design engineer for Verizon Wireless. MS. JAHN: And what is your education and experience? MR. COMPTON: I have a bachelor's degree in engineering from UCF. I heard someone speaking about UCF. And I've been doing this since Nextel days. So January of '98 is when I started doing this. MS. JAHN: And are you familiar with the tower project that we're discussing today colloquially referred to as Palmetto Ridge 2 at the intersection of Everglades Boulevard and 31st Avenue Northeast in Collier County, Florida? MR. COMPTON: Yes, I am. I originally did the search ring for this site and then the reevaluation and the re-approval of this site, so yes. MS. JAHN: All right. And, Commissioner Schumacher, just to -- just to make sure I understand your question, since I just ran him through a litany here to explain who he is, your question was, is Verizon familiar with 5G antennas? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 30 of 85 COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, I didn't. What I said was, "What's the difference between the technology of the 5G that they can mount on the streetlights versus what's being presented today?" COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. 5G and 4G, there's very little difference. The actual antennas themselves are literally just pieces of metal that radiate RF energy. The difference between 4G and 5G is technological, and there's books of information available for that. To answer your question, when we go on the light poles and stuff like that in towns and in dense areas, we put 4G and 5G on those same poles through those same exact antennas simultaneously. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Why wouldn't that be an option for this area that has no coverage versus a large tree-looking apparatus? MR. COMPTON: I've got it. There's two reasons for this. The primary reason is a lot of the Estates area, the way it's zoned. The tel -- further telecom law in the state of Florida where telecom companies are allowed to put small cells, which is what we call them, in right of -- public right-of-ways. The problem with the Estates area is those public right-of-ways do not exist. When the parcels were platted, there is no right-of-way. We basically have to go back to whoever owns each one of those pieces of land not only to put the pole in, but also to run the infrastructure that we need to connect them together. Even though it's a wireless facility, it still has to have a back hall, basically, a fiber connection back to the nearest cell site or back to back hall, which basically prohibits us from ever trying to string something like that together in the Estates area just the -- all it takes is one landowner along that route to say no, and you can't do anything. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I appreciate it. My daughter goes to UCF. So go Knights. MR. COMPTON: Go Knights. Golden Knights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: May I ask one follow-up question? MR. COMPTON: Yes, absolutely. MS. JAHN: Do small cells have pickup power -- MR. COMPTON: No. MS. JAHN: -- when a hurricane or power goes out? MR. COMPTON: No. Typically, we do not install backup power. There's a couple of reasons for that. The main reason is just the weight of the batteries and that kind of thing up in the air next to a right-of-way; it creates a safety hazard. So typically we do not put backup power. So, therefore, if there's any kind of a storm, if the power goes out, everything goes out, where a macro site tower like we're talking here would have a backup generator. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Just a general question. When you -- and this is regarding the determining requirements. You balance -- with the public, you said there was only 13 that attended the public hearing? MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn, and yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So where -- where in the process do you evaluate the need because people are screaming "there's no coverage" versus the aesthetics? I would assume that -- just human nature, most people complain about things, and they'll complain about the aesthetics, or they'll complain about no coverage. So how much -- what's the balance? You propose this. And do people realize that this is a benefit, and they're going to have coverage versus the impact of the aesthetics? I'm trying to -- where in this process do you evaluate that or do you explain to the public, yes, you may have a line-of-sight issue here, but we're -- this is providing a service that's to the benefit of the public in whole, and the person with the cell -- everybody has a -- almost everybody 5.A.b Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 31 of 85 has a cell phone now. So I'm just kind of wondering in the whole process how the companies evaluate the express need to provide coverage versus those who don't want the cell phone -- or cell tower there because of the aesthetics. MS. JAHN: Of course. And Mattaniah Jahn, again. And, essentially, when a tower hits my desk, it's because one or more carriers has noticed that they have a gap in their system. Their metrics are coming back saying -- and it's usually a combination of different things like the measured signal strength is not good, and they're getting degradation, they have complaints in an area, things like that. The typical process is that carriers then look at their existing network and go "How can we" -- Mr. Compton would use the word "optimize." "How can we adjust, tune, upgrade our existing network?" Because that's just switching out an antenna, that's a building permit and a couple of antennas. It's not building a -- building any facilities, right? If they can't do that, then they look to see if there's tall structures in the area. Of course, we're in the Estates. That really rules that out. Again, it's not public hearing zoning, so it's not three years -- two to three years of walking hand in hand with an applicant through Collier County's zoning process and then proceeding for another nine months to a year through your Site Development Plan process quite often, as I alluded to with the Golden Gate Boat tower. That is my understanding, it was still in site plan as of the summer. Once it hits my desk, you know, tower designs, unfortunately, Bridger, you know, was -- maybe it's because they're from Texas. They thought that it would make more sense to just have a simple gray tower out there and have it be a lattice instead of having it be a tree. So I'll blame that on them being Texans. Your staff asked right away, "Hey, you know, trees are usually what works in this county. Would you do it?" And you know they -- unfortunately, they said, "It makes more sense for it to be gray." We go along. We go through our staff review, so I'm not presenting something that's raw to my neighbors and saying, "Well, here's what it could be if staff is okay with it," right? Once I get through that, I hold my neighborhood information meeting. And in that presentation, I show them the plans. The same sheets I show you; the photo simulations that I have at the time, which back then would have been the lattice; and, of course, the RF package to show what it's doing for them and why I'm pulling them out of their homes and taking that time out of their evening. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I want to offer my compliments to you, Ms. Jahn, and also to the Bridger company, your client, and your client's carriers as well, all of whom were responsive to the requests of the NIM, and that matters greatly to us up here. The NIM is a very important step in what we do, and we look very favorably upon applicants who come in and report that they heard what the neighbors said and responded in a significant way. So my thanks to all of you. Let's see. I just want to, again, be sure the record is complete. You've got your Mosquito Control letter in. That was one condition. And the other condition about not splitting or altering the parcel, I think you orally agreed to that -- that was the second of staff's conditions -- am I correct? MS. JAHN: Mattaniah Jahn. Yes, that is correct. And we have provided the written -- the notarized consent to that from Mr. Moran, the property owner. It probably missed the cutoff date for your RF packet -- or for your staff package, but that is in the county's files. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Okay. So my question may be for Mr. Bosi, may be for the County Attorney. Are we missing something by not insisting that this be in the form of a perpetual easement or a perpetual restriction of some kind, or is this -- a notarized letter of this sort be equally binding so that it locks itself into, let's say, perpetuity? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 32 of 85 MR. BOSI: And I'm not -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure in terms of the agreement from the individual property owner. But the condition that we've imposed upon this property is -- most certainly will be imposed regardless of who owns the property or whether that property owner agrees or disagrees with the condition. If there was a split, that would be a zoning violation, a code enforcement, and there would have to be a remedy to address that violation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so if someone wanted to split it, they'd have to come in with a rezone? MR. BOSI: If they wanted to remove -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: This condition. MR. BOSI: -- this condition -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- they would have to seek a -- they would have to seek a new conditional use, a rezone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public hearings and all? MR. BOSI: Public hearings, and it would have to be ultimately decided by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They wouldn't be able to remove the condition without placing the conditional use on the entire five acres, and so that's how, you know, we came up with the condition. The owner has acknowledged the condition, so it would be enforceable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I'm not trying to add additional steps and documentation. I just want to be sure that it's reasonably connected to the perpetuity unless someone has public hearings, and that's what public hearings are for. I don't have any further questions or comments, and no one is signaling. Do we have any -- and, Ms. Jahn, you're finished, right? MS. JAHN: Yes. This is Mattaniah Jahn. Yes, I do reserve time for rebuttal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Of course. Do we have any public speakers, please? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we have three public speakers, two of which are in person. The first public speaker is Dwinell Bedard. Mr. Bedard, please come up to the podium. You'll need to be sworn in. And Mr. Bedard will be followed by Roselyne Dorval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Sir, have you been sworn in yet? MR. BEDARD: I have not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have not? Okay. We can take care of that. 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. BEDARD: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please state your name again for the record, sir. MR. BEDARD: My name's Dwinell Bedard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. BEDARD: Good morning to the chairpersons and everyone in attendance. My name is Dwinell Bedard. My property address is 3170 31st Avenue, the property directly across the street from the proposed site. I have several concerns about this. First and foremost, not just the aesthetics, but concerns of health. There are several independent studies that show that these types of cell phone towers cause a lot of cancer. During the initial hearing -- it wasn't a hearing; rather it was a forum where they were proposing this. There were several people in the community which have cancer, and they were very concerned. I don't think they're here today. But I have small children, and there are many independent studies that show -- I know they won't show you these studies, but that cause cancer not only to people but livestock and animals. I know there are a lot of wildlife preserves 5.A.b Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 33 of 85 around, and this can cause a lot of issues for those natural habitats. My second issue is I know when I purchased my home there were a lot of setback rules, and building this would also impede in the setback to the property that's next to it. My neighbor -- I don't know if they were able to get notification about this, but I will speak on their behalf. There are setback rules that I think that impedes on that setback. And, again, the aesthetics as well as the issue of selling. This might cause property value decreases and things of that nature. Are there any contingencies to protect the people who own properties now in place? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Do you have any other questions or comments? MR. BEDARD: And if there aren't, are there anything that -- the companies that are pushing for this, is there a way that there are potentially buy-outs? If they're not going to protect the community, is there any way that people who oppose there, they'll just buy out that land so that way they don't have to worry about any opposition? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we'll have the applicant respond to those if she wishes. The only thing I would say, the first point you raise, we have absolutely no jurisdiction. We've been completely preempted by the federal government on the RF cancer issue. MR. BEDARD: Roger that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's nothing we can do. And I wanted -- I didn't want to interrupt you because I wanted you to have a chance to speak -- MR. BEDARD: Roger that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and express your concerns but, unfortunately, our hands are tied. All right, sir. MR. BEDARD: Roger that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Next speaker? MR. JOHNSON: Roselyne Dorval, followed by Robert Anderson, who's on Zoom. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And if you would give us your last name, please, and then you have the floor. MS. DORVAL: My name is Roselyne Dorval. I am a wife, a mother of four children. They're here in attendance. They've been patiently listening and learning as well. And I wasn't at the community meeting that they had, but I'm glad that I saw the big sign letting me know that there would be this hearing. I heard a lot about -- I want to first address the -- when the attorney was speaking, they mentioned dead zone. And I truly feel that by putting this, it will become a literal dead zone when it comes to our overall health. A lot of the things that were talked about today pointed towards vanity, but I'm talking about the vulnerability of the people. And I know that you just mentioned from the last speaker you have no control, but I am someone that lives on that street, so I am worried about the cancer risk. I'm worried about the neurological effects. I'm worried about the reproductive health. I'm worried about the electromagnetic hypersensitivity. And I, myself, I have a bachelor's degree in alternative and functional medicine. So these are very real concerns that I researched. And I talked about let's not focus just on the vanity of what it looks like. Let's talk about the vulnerability. And I mentioned that I have four children, and they're the most vulnerable population, and there has been numerous studies that explain being in close proximity -- and I'm telling you I live on that street -- being in close proximity messes with their overall development of their brains, their body, their overall mood. And I understand that the chairperson spoke about schools removing this. I homeschool, so my home is the school, so I don't have that option of saying I don't want this, and it want [sic] to be removed. One of the first things that I told my husband when I saw the sign and looked it up, I said, "If this has already gone too far and we missed the boat on trying to stop this and voicing how we 5.A.b Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 34 of 85 feel, we will have to move." Because it's not just about our generation or the people sitting here. It's about future generations and the overall impact that it will have. And even people that are on that street that are wanting to have a family that don't have kids, it impacts their reproduction. So it might be just the focus of vanity for this board, and that's all you have control over, but as a member of the community, I would like to tell you that it's deeper than just what you're looking at. It's deeper because these things impact our internal health. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker. MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is Robert Anderson, who's on Zoom. We're going to prompt you to unmute. Mr. Anderson? Mr. Anderson? Mr. Anderson, please, speak if you can. Unmute yourself. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds as though perhaps he's disconnected. I'll ask if there's anyone in the room who has not registered to speak but, nonetheless, would like to be heard -- and I see a hand up -- please raise your hand. So I see one hand up. Are there any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Please approach, and we'll get you sworn in, if you haven't already been. 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. JEAN MARY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FRYER: State your name. MR. JEAN MARY: My name is Terry Dorval Jean Mary, and we have no problem -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you mind if I ask you to spell your last name. MR. JEAN MARY: J-e-a-n, M-a-r-y. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. JEAN MARY: I live on the street, at the end of the street by the canal, and we have no problem dialing 911 over there, at no point, at no time. Anytime, any day we can dial 911. We have no problem calling anybody, even standing on the street or be on the balcony of our house. We don't have that problem over there. And those people that want to put that tower there, if they have a problem calling 911, they can put it at their house because they don't -- they have the problem, because we don't. We do not have that problem at all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you for speaking. Anybody else in the room wish to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Was -- the gentleman on the phone, is he -- MR. JOHNSON: We think we can connect with him right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Let's try. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Anderson, are you there? Robert Anderson? (No response.) MR. JOHNSON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we tried. With that, we will now call for rebuttal, if Ms. Jahn wants to offer any. We'll close the public comment segment of the hearing as well. MS. JAHN: All right. Mattaniah Jahn, again, for the record. I know the Chair has acknowledged the preemption in federal law, but I am going to put a copy of the Telecom Act in the record. There's also a state-level preemption in 365.172 Florida Statutes, but I'm going to put 47 U.S.C., Section 332, in the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will you have a copy to give the court reporter? MS. JAHN: Absolutely. If I may approach, I will give a copy to Madam Court Reporter 5.A.b Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 35 of 85 and Counsel Ashton Cicko. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. You know, it's funny, I had -- and, again, me talking as a practitioner, just my personal experience, I had someone who once claimed that they would lose their organic farm certification because of the proximity of a tower. And we actually had -- this was up in Marion County, and I had to go to IFAS and have them look at it and confirm, no, they would not lose their organic certification. And then I underscore that while these are very present concerns for people, right, because change scares us, right, they're not competent substantial evidence, and they're not addressing the issues of compatibility. Compatibility is -- I would respectfully submit to you, compatibility isn't sameness; otherwise, we wouldn't have a zoning code. We would just have the same thing all over the county, whatever that one thing was, because that's all there would be. But compatibility is how we make different uses work together, in balance, a need that is known in your code and known and acknowledged in your code as an essential service. And we've done that through meeting the different requirements of your Land Development Code. I know that there was a concern brought out that there was a setback requirement that wasn't being met. This exceeds the code-required setbacks for the tower, and it also exceeds the spirit of what the code-required setbacks would be functionally for a non-camouflage tower to those neighboring residential uses. Sometimes I do get a question, or that concern can also stem from the idea that somehow a setback will be placed on the neighboring properties, and that's not the case. Your staff would confirm that as well. Property value drops, if you -- I'd respectfully submit that's not a question of compatibility. It is a concern that does come up from time to time. I have previously provided property value study letters basically showing -- the last one I did was for the Green Boulevard tower and just showing that the presence of a tower doesn't change the property values when you look at the hard data. I do have copies of a property value study from a tower that I recently zoned up -- last year, so it's more present data -- up in Pasco County, if that would be helpful in your decision today, but -- or if you need me to provide a property value study, I would have to come back in October, but I would respectfully submit that the monopine will not affect property values. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe it was Mr. Bedard who raised that question, so if you have materials, you might give him a copy if he's here. MS. JAHN: I'll be happy to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Good. Thank you. MS. JAHN: All right. Of course, you have known gaps. I went through the process -- you know, I went through the process that informs these. The carriers don't build these unless they have to. I think I have covered everything. Are there any questions that are still on the Planning Commission's mind? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have four signalers, please, starting with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I know -- whether it's our right or duty to talk about the health impacts, I'd like to learn more about it. You say there's no competent research showing an impact. Is there any competent search showing no impact? MS. JAHN: So, yes. I mean, there are -- there is research out there that's outside the scope of this hearing, but there is research out there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A lot of times in the future it would be good to present it only because I'm like people in the audience, I don't know. I mean, everybody says there's competent information, but it would be good -- there's -- there must be some central source that the government relies on before they set these standards. It would be nice to see more of it. I know 5.A.b Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 36 of 85 it's not really our right, but... MS. JAHN: I understand. I hear you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't like it when one arm says it's not a -- I can't ask you that question because it's not our responsibility. I think our responsibility is to protect the public, and sometimes it's good -- it's been something that's been digested nationally probably for years, but it hasn't been here. We don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: These are all good questions. And as a matter of general knowledge, it would be helpful to all of us; however, we have to be careful, because if someone here were to vote against this and their reason was RF signals or danger from RF, that would be a disqualifier of your vote, because it's outside our jurisdiction. So we'd -- you know, if anybody wants to vote against this, they need to base it on the things that are still within our legal purview. Next is Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I have a lot of thoughts, but I'm trying to parse through and see what my questions are. You said -- in response to Commissioner Shea, you said there's research out there, and that was the end of the sentence. Can you complete that sentence? CHAIRMAN FRYER: As to what the research shows? COMMISSIONER VERNON: You said "research is out there." Stop. MS. JAHN: Yeah. There are studies that can be performed to analyze that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: All right. Let me -- and I apologize for interrupting. Let me rephrase the question and just -- are you able to cite or aware of, even if you can't cite, studies out there that indicate that there are no harmful effects from these types of towers to human health or even animal health? Or are you simply saying -- so it's a choice, or you can just explain -- that there's no competent evidence out there showing that does cause harm, if you understand my distinction. MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. I do. Can I have a moment? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And while you're taking your moment, I want to caution members of the Planning Commission, I mean, there are some outer limits to the reasons upon which we can cast our vote. And so if someone feels compelled to vote against this, I would urge them to state a reason that is within our jurisdictional purview. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And if I may, a lot of times, you know -- and I think you've seen me do this -- I will -- I will -- and I think other people do this, too, on the dais -- I will explore areas that -- and I understand exactly what our standards are, but given the public speakers, I do want to explore this, not because I think that -- I understand the federal law and, apparently, the state law, which I wasn't aware of. So I'm with you, but I do want to explore it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm certainly not going to cut you off. We can explore this all we want. I just want whatever action we take to have validity under applicable law. But I think I've made my point. Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Wait. I think she was going to answer my question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MS. JAHN: So where I'd have to send you back to would be the FCC itself as well as going back to just the recorded discussions that were around the Telecom Act when it was passed -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Which -- MS. JAHN: -- which are public record. COMMISSIONER VERNON: When was that? MS. JAHN: That was 1996. But the FCC has continued to reevaluate that. They reevaluated it as of -- I'd have to go pull my rule. It was recent. It was within the last three years. They went through and had a public-hearing process, and half the country commented on it and 5.A.b Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 37 of 85 came back to the deliberation that the safety standards still apply and that, you know, this is safe. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And probably not a fair question. I don't expect you to answer it. But during that last process, do you know whether there was -- the conclusion more resembled "there's insufficient evidence to show harm" or that "based on the evidence we've seen -- seen, the FCC's seen, we believe this does not cause human harm"? if you understand the distinction I drew there. MS. JAHN: I do. And I don't have that order memorized by any stretch of the imagination. It is Federal Register. But they did -- basically, you ended up with parties who wanted higher restrictions provided a basis of evidence to the FCC, right? And then, of course, you know, the industry and operators provided others, and then the FCC went through and balanced that and said that they believed -- that given everything that's come before them, their safety standards are good -- are good. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Could you address the issue raised by the gentleman in the back corner there? I believe he raised an issue in regards to what legal action or what can he do if he wanted to seek compensation for what he perceived to be either an impact on the value of his home or an impact on his health or his family's health? And I believe that, in summation, was what he was asking. So I'm not an attorney. And so I'm not going to attempt to even address it, but I would wish you put something on the record in regards to if any of the public feels that there's -- what is their -- what's the open avenue of approach in regards to what they could or could not do in regards to seeking some kind of compensation. MS. JAHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I believe, sir, was that your -- that was -- addressed your question? MR. BEDARD: Yes, sir. MS. JAHN: So that is -- actually goes -- the reason that there's no special tools for that in anything like the Telecom Act and federal laws is because the tool for that goes back to the common law, and it's the concept of nuisance and a nuisance on a neighbor's property harming me. There is -- it's a very strong and alive concept, right, the idea of nuisance, the idea of negligence. It is alive in Florida. You can see by driving down the road -- once you leave Collier County, of course, because you guys don't have billboards. But when you go to places that do have billboards, people like Morgan & Morgan are everywhere. That is strong and vigorously enforced without -- without cost to the injured parties, usually. So there is a very sophisticated apparatus that's been there since before towers even existed to make sure this doesn't happen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I heard everything, but from the standpoint of the gentleman raised the issue, does he approach the cell company, does he approach the provider, or does he approach you as their representative because -- MS. JAHN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- if he wants to raise an issue, as the Chair pointed out, you know, we're restricted, as you well know, on land use and compatibility and the criteria that are defined in the Land Development Code. But if they want to seek relief elsewhere, is it they hire an attorney or do they write a letter to Verizon? That's what I'm looking -- I just want something on the record so they understand what their -- what their approach would have to be. MS. JAHN: Yes. So different solutions, trying to keep it $1 answers. One, reach out to Bridger or, two, reach out to the carriers. Three, hire an attorney, right? Four, contact the FCC and report a complaint. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 38 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. I just -- to follow up on Commissioner Shea, so in doing my light research on this, the World Health Organization in 2011 classified RF as a Class 2 -- Class 2 carcinogen. So that's where -- I guess that's -- World Health Organization was relied upon heavily during COVID. So, again, I don't know how that transmits to this because the tower's so high in the air. So, Ms. Jahn, again, I'm not trying to speculate here or pick on you guys. I'm just trying to get thorough answers so that everything's gone through. I think the conformity wouldn't be as much of a problem if it was kind of like where the tower's at on Green where you actually have trees that kind of come up to the base of that where those branches are out on that tower versus here there is no real foliage out there at all. It's all kind of cleared land, so it stands out like a sore thumb, which I understand why the concern there is. One of the other concerns I have is you had stated that is a literal dead zone, like, there is no cell phone coverage. We had testimony where the gentleman said he could dial 911. When I went onto both Verizon and T-Mobile's website, both of them show 5G coverage for this exact area that you're saying there is none. So is that just mis -- is that a marketing mistake on their side? Because it says there's 5G and 4G available exactly where this tower needs to go, where it said that there is no -- that you're saying there is no coverage. So I'm trying to understand. MS. JAHN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Is that just a mistake on their end? MS. JAHN: So Mattaniah Jahn, again. What is lacking here is service, and service is both coverage and capacity. Marketing maps show at least some form of signal. It may not be reliable signal, but we deal in terms, for zoning purposes, of reliable signal. So in terms of your phone being able to reliably function, this -- this area has a dead zone. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So 5G would be reliable service, because that's what's highlighted on Verizon's website as being exactly where this tower needs to go. MS. JAHN: No. 5G is like saying a car. So it is a type of technology. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MS. JAHN: Whether it is reliable in the specific situation is a matter of individual facts based upon that individual site, and that's why we provide these RF -- these RF coverage maps. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. I'm just trying to understand, because if both Verizon and T-Mobile have these coverage maps which show the whole area, and they're bright colors and dark colors, I don't understand why they're saying there's no coverage when both companies market it as such. MS. JAHN: My apologies. I was pulled aside by a carrier. So may I please hear your question again? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I said, both companies advertise as though there is coverage on both 5G and 4G and service, meaning that there is coverage there, and you're stating there's not. And I'm trying to understand why both companies would market as such if that's not actually the truth. MS. JAHN: So they are saying that there is signal there; that's coverage. Service is coverage plus capacity. So it's more than just the fact that there's signal there, right? I could turn these lights down to 10 percent, and it doesn't necessarily mean that you can read on the dais. So there's a difference between the presence of signal and the level and the reliability that they're trying to establish. I have a late entrance into the room, an RF engineer from AT&T, if you would like to hear from them at all. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: One more question. So does T-Mobile and 5.A.b Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 39 of 85 Verizon have some type of data on how many calls they're actually dropping and how many they cannot serve in that area right now? MS. JAHN: They do have data on that. It is proprietary, so I'm not -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So we can't -- so you're saying that it's about capacity, but you're also saying that you can't tell me what capacity they're operating at or who they're dropping or how many of their customers they're not serving because the capacity's over what it can handle, correct? MS. JAHN: That is the case for Verizon. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea would like to hear from the witness that you mentioned a moment ago. MS. JAHN: Understood. 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. YANEZ: I do. MS. JAHN: Please state your name and address for the record. MR. YANEZ: Good morning. My name is Michael Yanez. I'm an engineer for AT&T. Office is -- I forgot my -- oh, okay. We just moved offices, so I'll give the home address. 7203 Loch Ness Drive, Miami Lakes, Florida 33014, is the home address. Good morning. There was a question specifically that I can address, I guess, from the side of AT&T. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, what did you want to hear from? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think the question was the same one you asked: Is there any kind of data that would make the people that are living near by feel a little better that they're not going to be impacted negatively by the RF? MR. YANEZ: I mean, I could state in general terms. I guess, you know, the kind of statements that I would make at these hearings is that RF emissions are based on the proximity to the signal is one of the large -- the largest components to this. The FCC sets limits for the exposure to -- for human exposure to RF based on, you know, the latest available research. Now these -- you know, and all the carriers and tower operators are required to comply with these limits. In the case of a tower, the amount of RF energy on the ground is so low relative to that limit, it's almost not -- you know, nonexistent. Where we worry about these things is in building situations and rooftops where people can walk up near the antennas. And, generally, I, as an engineer, somebody who works around these facilities, the rule of thumb is stay six to 10 feet away from the front of an antenna at the same level. Now, when it's up 150 feet in the air, most of the energy's going well over the top of your head. In fact, the signal from a tower inside the house will generally be much, much lower than from what the WiFi router inside the house, just because of the distance and the attenuation from the building itself. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you also compare the EMF and RF energy that's coming off of a tower to that which comes off of the cellular phone that I put up to my ear; which is more dangerous? MR. YANEZ: Absolutely. The cell phone near your ear will have many thousands of times greater energy entering your body than from the tower. As a matter of fact, placing the tower in the vicinity means that your phone now operates at a lower power level, and you may actually get less exposure to RF than your phone operating at the maximum to reach a tower many miles away. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else, Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, that was very helpful. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 40 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Another unfair question for you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Qualified. COMMISSIONER VERNON: To your knowledge -- if you feel you can answer this -- have any of your clients ever bought out neighbors despite the fact that they don't actually need to buy them out to get something approved? MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. And, no, that hasn't happened in the -- in my experience zoning towers since 2013. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MS. JAHN: And that's across Florida and Georgia. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything from -- further on rebuttal? MS. JAHN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Then I guess we will take the matter under submission and deliberate and vote. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We don't hear from the county at all, huh? They never -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, did I neglect to call on the county? If I did -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. That's quite all right, Chair. As stated within our staff report, staff has placed some additional conditions of approval upon the tower, but we are recommending approval, and we do recognize that with three carriers, this is a tower that, obviously, is in high demand from the industry regarding the location and the opportunity to improve the system. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to make a motion to approve. I certainly understand -- great discussion from the public. In fact, I'm impressed with how prepared they came in regards to their concerns, both health and the financial impact this may have. But both of those areas are out of our purview. I'm sorry that -- for the public that the criteria that we have to vote on has to be compatibility, safety, those kind of things in regards to the land development. And then without any substantial evidence to refute or substantiate any claim that there's an impact on the future value of your home, as was presented by the counsel in regards to the evidence that she presented, I find no justification to deny this request. So I'm going to recommend approval of this request, PL20220003008, and this is the Palmetto Ridge tower. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So I just wanted to -- point of discussion. When FPL built that power center on Collier Boulevard, that home that was on that -- I think that was 13th -- was pretty much deemed unusable, which is why the zoning was approved to put a storage center there. There is no other communication towers anywhere close to this one out there. There is no compatibility. I understand the health concerns, and I understand the FCC says we can't -- we can't weigh those in, and I respect the Chair on that, and I understand that -- the last testimony kind of changed my mind as to what AT&T said about the waves being that much less than the cell phone you put next to your ear. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 41 of 85 The compatibility is what I'm looking at for that area. And none of those homes -- I don't even see the owner's personal radio tower up. So there is nothing out there that matches this. The one on Green does have compatibility because there is foliage around it. You've got a taller building, with the hospital being in front of it. This, there is no compatibility. Now, although the applicant has stated that there's no service, both of their corporate websites show differently. So compatibility and actual need -- which we had testimony from an owner who said, "I have no problem dialing 911. I have no problem taking phone calls." The lack of the data that shows me that there's actually a coverage issue there, I can't vote for this, and that's the reasons why I would be against it is compatibility, usage, and what's actually going on there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you. Any further discussion before we take a vote? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. For the record, that home that you were citing at the corner, I think when we discussed that rezoning action, they deemed that that home was not marketable. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah, because there was a power station -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Power station and a substation. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not that was -- you know, somebody could buy that and live with it, but they said it was basically not marketable. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree with you. And like I said, when it comes to compatibility, if there was other towers around there, that would be compatible to it, or if there was even foliage that was even half the height so that it blended in, that would make it compatible, but this -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. Yeah. MS. JAHN: Point of order. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. JAHN: I'll just put it on the record, and then if you say I can't speak, then -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. JAHN: But I would request a chance to respond just so that I get the sandwich from a procedural standpoint. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MS. JAHN: So I know that part of the compatibility logic spoken of by Mr. -- by Commissioner Schumacher was the idea that there's other towers out there, and that's called tower clusters or tower farms, and that's actually a concept that tower codes try to avoid. And that's actually why most codes, including your code, encourages the sharing of towers. This is a use where, since it is network-wise, it does have to be spread across the county. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I don't -- this is probably going to be a ramble, but I'm going to vote in favor of it. I think that there's a lot of concern. And I heard Chuck's comments. And I just feel like you've got a good actor before us. You know, you guys are acting in good faith, following the law. Great presentation. Great -- you went through the process, you know, is there another way to do this? But it's the system is the problem. And so the system, to me -- I mean, you've got to -- you've either got to change federal and state law, which is kind of outrageous to ask somebody in the room to go do that, or become an activist and get the word out with studies or -- and it came up last week -- the legal system. And you even mentioned it. You know, the great thing about our country is we have a robust private legal system instead of a gigantic government covering everything. And just sort of to respond to Commissioner Schmitt's questioning, you know -- and I just 5.A.b Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 42 of 85 generally tell people, when you're involved in a negotiation, the first thing you do is you go -- you talk to a lawyer who knows what they're doing in this area and see what your legal rights are, and then armed with that knowledge -- and a lot of lawyers will talk to you without charging you, get a sense of what your rights might be, and they might be zero or they might be significant. And then -- I'm not saying it will do any good, but, again, I've been doing this for about four years now, and I've seen people stand before us that I felt like were not good actors -- sort of bad actors, and I've seen good actors, and I think you've got somebody standing -- or presenting this application that is a good actor and will at least listen to what you have to say. I don't know that it will get you anywhere, but I think for public, just generally speaking, figure out your legal rights on a micro -- micro scale for your personal self and your family, figure out your legal rights, and then talk to the person on the other side of the table after you do that. So I'm going to vote for it, because, you know, we've had a number of these before us. And I agree with Commissioner Schmitt, and we just -- we don't have the power to deal with this. And I'm not sure a protest vote is a way to fix the problem. But I think there is potentially a problem, whether true or not. I've heard 100 times of the concerns of these towers, not on this board, just in life. You know, I grew up around them. So, you know, I always wondered did it affect -- you know, so the concern is out there. It's not crazy conspiracy theory. And when I questioned you hard on the study showing it's not a problem -- you know, I heard the AT&T engineer, but still, I did hear, "Oh, we have conclusive studies" -- and they're not your studies, but conclusive studies out there that says it doesn't. So I think it's a big-picture issue for your client, and I'm sure you've heard this before and in front of other planning commissions, but this is sort of the first time we've really delved into this. And thank you to the public for really highlighting it and having us address it. So I -- hopefully that gives some help to the public as well as the applicant on at least my take on it, and I am going to vote for it, but I feel like I'm going to vote for it, in part, because I'm constrained to vote against it due to, I think, the same concerns that we all have, but Chuck particularly has. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I'm going to vote for it, but I think in the future -- I mean, this has got to be the same exact thing you encounter every time. There needs to be more education in your presentation that RF -- by not putting RF as not harmful in your presentation, the assumption is you're hiding something. I would go out of my way to put in educational material as part of your presentation to the public, because this is a very common discussion. We can't do much about it, but you could make your life a lot easier if you had the studies in the -- at the NIMs and things like that, because it's the first question everybody asks. But I'm going to -- I, like Commissioner -- like Chris, I don't have any other basis, so I'm going to vote for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other planning commissioners want to be heard at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, it's been moved and seconded to approve the conditional use, and this project does not require EAC review. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Nay. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 43 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes 6 to -- 5-1. Thank you very much -- MS. JAHN: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- to all concerned members of the public. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I could -- I'm sorry. If I could say one more time, I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think -- and, again, doing this four years now, that you were -- you were directly answering our questions. We asked you some tough questions. I appreciate the candor, the credibility, the professionalism. You're very good at your job, and your employer should know that. MS. JAHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I second that. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So do I. Thank you, Ms. Jahn. I know I was a pain, but I appreciate your patience -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I've had comments from several people that if we extend all the way until 2 p.m. without a lunch break, that's asking a bit too much of everyone concerned. So I'm going to try to avoid that today. We're right up against a time when we would usually have lunch. If not, we'd have a court reporter break anyway. So I'm going to propose that we do take a 30-minute pause for lunch, unless there's objection to that. In fact, we'll make it for 42 minutes to take it all the way to 12:30. If not -- no objection, then we stand in recess until 12:30. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:48 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Planning Commission has returned to session, please. Take your seats. ***Our final hearing today will be PL20230012905. This is the conversion of golf courses Land Development Code amendment. The matter's purely legislative in nature, no quasi-judicial companion; thus, no need for swearing in of witnesses or ex parte disclosures. And with that, Chair recognizes Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Again, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Just to start off the process, this is an LDC amendment requesting modifications to 5.05.15, which -- in the Land Development Code, which is the golf course conversion process which was adopted in 2017 by the Board of County Commissioners. In the package that you received for the LDC amendment, I just wanted to read the first paragraph, the background, just to give you the context of why we're here. On February 14th of 2023, the Board directed the staff to bring back an LDC amendment to clarify that the Board has the discretion to grant deviations to reduce the minimum average greenway width of a proposed golf course conversion during the rezoning process. Additionally, on April 11th, 2023, the Board recognized the existing golf course conversion intent-to-convert application process had not been in effect in bringing the developer and the stakeholders together earlier in the process to resolve issues as initially intended and directed staff to bring back recommendations for an amendment that could improve the process and remove potential Bert Harris claims. The Board also discussed the possibility of repealing the intent-to-convert process in its entirety. So what -- so what staff was tasked with was try to make this process more defensible against Bert Harris claims, because one of the things the Board recognized, we were having -- we were having claims of Bert Harris against the county before any application for a development was actually denied. They were saying that the individuals that were -- that intended and are suing the county -- and this is -- it's happening right now with The Links of Naples, which is suing the county because we had indicated that they would have to go through the intent-to-convert process. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 44 of 85 We are now in the Bert Harris process of settling that claim because we indicated that they would have to -- they would have to go through the intent-to-convert process to convert a golf course to a residential subdivision without even denying that by saying that they had to go through the conversion process was sufficient enough for that -- for the claim to be made in that regard. So that's one aspect. The second aspect was the intent-to-convert process was designed to try to promote conversation between the developer or the redeveloper of that golf course and the residential communities that surrounded that golf course, and there was a whole formulaic systematic approach towards what the developer had to do to try to help promote discussion in terms of preferences, visual preferences, surveys, stakeholder outreach meetings, developer's alternative scenarios. These formulaic approaches towards how they had to try to promote better conversation, and the end goal of that was so when it goes to the rezoning process, those conversations could help inform and bring more consistency and agreement. What staff had provided -- or what staff had observed and what staff had recognized, that that wasn't happening. It wasn't happening during the golf course conversion. I was at the second Riviera Golf Course conversion SOM meeting, and understandably, the residents were entrenched within their position. They don't want to see the golf course transition into anything else. The developer wanted to develop the -- said that the golf course was no longer fiscally feasible, and they needed to transition into an alternative design. Both parties became entrenched. Both parties were not exchanging dialogue. There was no ideas that were -- that were provided for that brought any compromise in the intended purpose. So based upon those recognitions and based upon the Board of County Commissioners' direction, staff attempted to try to find a middle ground that could alleviate the pressure in the ability for Bert Harris claims to be levied against the county before an application would be denied but also recognizing that there is benefit if there is some additional dialogue that goes before the -- before the application would be submitted for a rezoning application, and that was kind of some of the thinking in the mindsets and the factors that staff utilized to try to provide the amendment. What we have proposed is a two-page intent-to-convert process. The prior version was nine pages with a lot more substantive activities that were being required and prescribed of the -- of the developer. And the intent to convert -- and you can see it on the screen. You know, the purposes of this section is to require additional public steps -- of public involvement and to add a greenway requirement for the proposed conversion of an existing golf course to a nonexisting golf course. It's an intent to involve the public prior to submittal of a rezone or an SRA amendment application to require the applicant to engage residents, property owners, and the surrounding community early in the concept design phase of the conversion project in order to better identify compatibility issues in existing -- within existing neighborhoods. So similar to the -- similar to the same type of intent, we've just really minimized the prescribed activities that are going to be required. We provided a section for exemptions. What we found was in the first -- and, please, if you have questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm going to interrupt you, Mike, because I was waiting for you to finish the introduction. I think I'm the only member of the Planning Commission that was here when we passed the 2017 amendments, I believe. I think. As you well know, and the residents from both Riviera and Lakewood who participated, it was, if I recall, it had to have been at least 40 hours’ worth of, maybe more, of LDC hearings, and it had to go on over at least four or five meetings, if I'm not mistaken. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 45 of 85 And the reason for that was the process was developed, and -- it was a bit onerous, there's no doubt. And some of it I had some misgivings about it because it was rather onerous in regards to all the steps you had to go through. But the fact is, the input from the public, the LDC amendments, which were -- went through public-hearing process, were approved by both Board of County Commissioners -- or by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Of course, they even went through the DSAC at that time, Development Services Advisory Council. It was approved. I really do not understand how, if we have a developer who says we're at an impasse -- and I don't even understand, Heidi, how there can even be a Bert Harris claim without -- if they say, "Gee, this is too hard, so I'm going to file a Bert Harris claim," there's no claim. Where is the claim? It has to be turned down. And I've got to tell you, I'm not really very excited about the changes. Now, there could be some modifications, but what -- and I know we're going to hear some opposition. But what's happened is you have taken what I think is a very laborious and strenuous process, but the process was there to protect all parties. We now just are converting to what I summarize as no more than two NIMs. And I -- and even if the developer threatened to file a Bert Harris claim, it's not a claim until he's been denied, he or she's been denied. Where is this claim? And why -- what drove the Board of County Commissioners and the staff to decide that we need to change this? I really need to understand how we got to where we are now. And, Mike, I know you said it, but there's still no -- there's no issue here. The issue is we're at an impasse. Well, okay, big deal. Then put it before the public in a public-hearing process. Meaning, bring the amendment forward -- not the LDC amendment, but bring the petition forward and let it go through the public-hearing process and get denied or get approved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that was one of the problems, and we have had, I believe, three Bert Harris claims filed. And so one of the problems with the intent-to-convert process is that when it was formulated, it was intended to say, "Check, check, check," they did all these items that they were supposed to do. But what happened is the petitioners were trying to -- or felt that the merits of what they were submitting was being decided, and that's because there was no flexibility, or at least the developer was arguing that there was no flexibility in some of the requirements. That's why they proceeded, and they filed their Bert Harris claims. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand, but there's no claim until it's denied through the public-hearing process. They might have not liked it. They may have not -- I don't remember the developer being here when we went through the LDC amendments either. They may have participated; I don't recall. They certainly had an opportunity at that time to influence the process. But if the developer just wrang his hands and say, "Gee, this is too hard, and I think I'm going lose, so therefore I'm going to withdraw." Gee, that sounds familiar. No, I'm not going down that road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So the litigation team assessed the cases, and they have -- the cases are still pending, so there are some -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not a lawyer. Again, you are, and I turn to our attorneys. But until it's denied through a public-hearing process -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that would be the county's position. And so the litigation team did ask for flexibility. They did not ask for removing some of the more cumbersome requirements. In working with staff, some of the items that were removed were, like, the developer's alternatives because it wasn't providing any more than just additional paperwork, and the SOMs were reduced to a proposed third NIM, which is a NIM that occurs before the petition is filed, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for my colleagues up here, it's -- the two golf courses we're talking about, the homes that surround the golf course are not part of the zoning of the golf 5.A.b Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 46 of 85 course. They're separate entities. The golf course is a separate tract. The homes just happen to be built around the golf course. And we got into the whole discussion about protecting perceived rights and my -- what I built on and all that kind of thing. So without getting into the whole background of it -- at the same time the golf course was going -- was going belly up or did go belly up, and somebody bought it and wanted to develop it, and they have every right to do that. I just don't understand -- there may have been an impasse, as Mike said, but it's still -- the impasse -- they could still proceed through the rezoning process and wait to see if it gets denied. I -- this is sort of like, let's change the rules so we can make it easier and avoid the pain and agony, and I'm waiting to see what the residents think, because I don't know if you-all -- I'm waiting to hear is if these amendments were passed to you-all in a way that you-all agreed that, "Okay. Well, we'll agree to acquiesce and withdraw some of the requirements so that we can get through the rezoning process." It seems like this is pretty one-sided, and I know what we went through to put these LDC amendments together. MR. BOSI: And I'll respond directly to that, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: It was directed by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: Staff didn't initiate this. This was directed by the Board of County Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- to staff to modify -- to modify under the premise of the two directions they provided within the hearings in February and April. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did the staff, then, initiate any contact with the communities that were impacted to get their input on this? MR. BOSI: No, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the first hearing, then, that they're -- they're basically being made aware of these changes without any consultation prior to this that there were these pretty significant changes. MR. BOSI: I mean, the DSAC -- the DSAC meetings were open and available. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BOSI: But, you know, this was the direction that was provided to staff from the Board of County Commissioners, and at that -- at that meeting, there was serious discussion during that meeting whether they wanted just to eliminate the intent-to-convert process altogether. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I'll be frank, I mean, some of it, I thought, was pretty onerous, but it is what it is. We got to that because of all the input that came into it. But it seems sort of disingenuous now to just say, "Oh, gosh. Thank you-all for your input, and we appreciate this, but now we're changing our mind and we're going to make it a lot easier." And the intent here was not to make it easy. The intent was so the public would be aware that a developer was going to come in and develop on a piece of property they don't own. I remember even back then one of the petitioners, I said, "Well, the community ought to just buy the golf course." Well -- and then they turned to the county, and they wanted the county to buy the course. And I mean, I can go through the whole history. But the fact is, we are now here trying to -- trying to change a process that I thought was put in place to protect both the applicant and the surrounding property owners, and I hope that's still the case. But I read this, and I'm -- when we go through it, I'll have -- I do have some concerns. And I know we got input from Tony Pires, and it's going to be pretty valuable to go through some of those issues as well. MR. BOSI: There's also Katie Berkey representing Riviera -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't get anything from Katie. MR. BOSI: It's in your package. It's -- 5.A.b Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 47 of 85 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My error. MR. BOSI: -- the second attachment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's hard to see. Her comments appear as balloon notes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those are hers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Oh, those are hers. Thank you. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I want to -- before I call on the other commissioners, if I may, I share Vice Chairman's misgivings about this for mostly the same reasons going back to what Jimmy Carter's assistant, Bert Lance, said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I think that the system is working pretty well. Now, from the county staff's perspective, they were instructed by the Board of County Commissioners to do something, and they did something. So, you know, they're -- this -- the criticisms or the objections that may be forthcoming from the dais are not necessarily going to be directed at staff, because staff was just doing what the bosses of this county asked it to do, the five county commissioners. And so, you know, staff did what it was asked to do. My concern is that the result, though, is a significant tilt toward the development community away from the individual homeowners in specific ways that I will enumerate when it comes time to talk specifics. But that -- I find that very worrisome, and I will -- I'll be heard on that at a later time this afternoon. And before I turn it back to you, Mr. Bosi, I've got two commissioners who want to be heard. First Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I'm behind these guys. I need some context. I look at most of the golf communities -- I'm looking forward -- I know we have two particular ones that we're talking about, but I'm looking at it going forward. I live in a golf community. It's part of a PUD. The development density for that section of land is what's in the PUD. So if the owner of the golf course -- and it's not us -- decides he wants to put homes, he's got to ask for increased density from us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I guess I don't understand -- I mean, the PUD, for me, is the protection for me as a resident in our community, but I'm guessing it's not helping -- MR. BOSI: No, you're correct 100 percent. Staff's not really -- isn't abundantly concerned about golf courses that are within PUDs. Golf courses within PUDs are developed as a part of a whole single project. That project includes the golf, the residential development that surrounds the golf, and intertwined, and the other amenities that are provided for within that PUD. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But they get -- MR. BOSI: That's a bundle. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But they get the maximum -- more density by having the golf course. MR. BOSI: That's a bundle. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. MR. BOSI: There's interrelationship, there's an interdependency, that is an understanding between that interrelationship. The golf courses that we're going to be dealing -- you're going to hear the public from are individuals who are in straight residential zoning and are adjacent to a golf course that's zoned "golf course," so they're not part of a PUD. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. BOSI: And they may have been developed together, but over time they have different zoning districts, they have different ownership, and that ownership of the golf course may want to take that golf course in a different direction than those individuals who live on those 5.A.b Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 48 of 85 properties. They don't have the same type of interrelationship that the -- and the protections that the PUD gives to them. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the documents recognize that. And what percentage of the golf courses in the county don't have a PUD protection? MR. BOSI: There's -- I would say there's nine out of the 72, so roughly about 13, 14 percent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That are outside a PUD? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. So that's really what this is focused on is that 13 -- okay, thank you. MR. BOSI: Yes. And those are the ones that this court -- this conversion process was really intended to do. Because staff recognizes if someone comes in on a golf course within a PUD, there's a whole set of negotiations and interrelationships that they're going to have to deal with that's unique, that's not like these individuals where you've got separate ownership, separate zoning districts, and they're related, but they're not intertwined. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And if -- if I may -- I'm sorry to interrupt. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, that's okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I did not see any provision in this language that limits it to non-PUD situations. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. MR. BOSI: No, no. If someone went through the PUD request to amend it, they would still have to go through the intent-to-convert process that is currently on the books. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So currently on the books we've got two intent-to-convert hearings. What are they called, SOMs? MR. BOSI: SOMs, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And they take place pre-application, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I guess the practices are somewhat less formal than the NIMs, but there's notice that goes out to the stakeholders and nearby residents, and they have an opportunity before the application is filed to make their views known and for the developers to hear what those concerns are and maybe could be addressed before the application was filed. And so the proposal here is to reduce the number of encounters with the public before application from two to one, and the one that we would have would be called a NIM. The other thing that I want to say, and I -- I interrupted you, and I apologize. I should let you finish. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: At my age, I forget what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But I -- but at some point in time, that piece of property, it became a golf course, and it was zoned. What does the Growth Management Plan -- you've got an area -- does the Growth Management Plan say that you can -- that was planned to convert into residences and now we're going to have ten hundred -- or a thousand more residences on the golf course? Wouldn't that be a -- MR. BOSI: These golf courses are within the urban residential subdistrict of the Growth Management Plan, and golf courses and residential development are both uses that are provided for, so it's -- it doesn't say anything in terms of -- it allows those uses to be permitted, but it does -- has no -- it doesn't talk to the individual relationship between those individual uses. COMMISSIONER SHEA: They have a right, then, to -- I guess it confuses me. I don't know how you plan infrastructure if you have these golf courses that all of a sudden you could have four of them, and you've got 4,000 more homes that you weren't planning on because they're golf courses, and now you've got to figure out your infrastructure. It just seems like you get out of 5.A.b Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 49 of 85 control. MR. BOSI: That's what -- no. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't know how you manage it. MR. BOSI: Right. That's why we have a concurrency management system. We have a concurrency management system that says, if you want to convert that golf course from golf course to a residential development, you would have to go through the platting process or the Site Development Plan process, and at that time that's called a development order. That development order would be put through the concurrency management process where you would check the capacity within your road system, check the capacity within the school system, check the capacity within the utility system. Is there available -- is there available capacity within those systems? They would have to address any deficiencies to be able to move forward. So that's how our Growth Management Plan would protect that there's assurance that there's adequate infrastructure. It doesn't -- it doesn't speak to that specificity within the GMP, but it does have the requirement for the concurrency management system to be applied. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, they have the right. MR. BOSI: They have the right to ask. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, more than a right. I could see where the Bert Harris would come in because they don't -- they're not stopped. They're told it's one of the options they could do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to comment, if I may. The Bert Harris concern -- and I -- look, I'm a taxpayer in this county, and so I commend the County Attorney's Office for trying to avert as many lawsuits as possible, but I don't think the way of doing that is just to concede every issue that comes up to the development community. Bert Harris, for instance, the cases that are out there, I believe -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- are cases where the plaintiff, the aggrieved party, is the developer. And maybe that's what was intended in Tallahassee when Bert Harris came in. But, you know, individual property owners should have Bert Harris rights as well, particularly within PUDs but, arguably, even in a situation where you're next to another kind of zoning. And just because individual property owners can't afford zillion-dollar-an-hour lawyers and law firms to represent them doesn't mean that their Bert Harris rights should be ignored. So that was a point that I wanted to make, and now I want to call on Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I do not disagree with, I don't think, anything that's been said so far, but I kind of want to jump to -- and I think I saw Chuck light up. He may have some other thoughts substantively on this. But I want to jump more to the approach because it seems like there was a significant process, as Commissioner Schmitt said, to get this thing in place. I'm guessing we went too far, and I'm guessing the lawyers are claiming they have standing because we've put such onerous burdens on them. That gives them the right -- they don't have to go through this futile process in order to be able to go before a court. I'm assuming that's their position. And given the fact that there's multiple claims, they're probably on pretty solid ground in terms of having standing. But the commissioners who -- I guess in some ways our boss -- they want to -- they want to change this thing for whatever -- you know, I don't think we're going to convince them that they're just wrong on that point. So, you know, I think what I would like to see us do is protect as much as we can of this lengthy process we went through while trying to insulate us somewhat from a Bert Harris claim. You can't fully insulate it because it costs 300 bucks to file a lawsuit. And if it's a ridiculous claim, it's probably worth fighting. But it seems to me the approach of having staff come up with a new system is the wrong way to go. It seems to me that we should take the existing system, take the lawsuits that have been filed, take the Bert Harris statute and case law, and go back and redline what we did to see where we might have weaknesses legally and be subjected to a Bert Harris Act claim rather than sort 5.A.b Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 50 of 85 of -- you're not starting over, but rather than you guys having built from the ground up something that's lesser, why don't we take what we've got, what Commissioner Schmitt was talking about, and see where our lawyers think it ought to be redlined, and we listen to our lawyers, and then we make a decision, and we ship something back up with redline changes from what it was rather than something that's arguably too low a hurdle, and now we've got -- we swung the pendulum too far, and now property owners are going to be saying, "Well, I'm going to be bringing a Bert Harris Act claim," or "This isn't fair." So I just think -- I almost feel like -- and I don't know if this is a timing issue. I almost feel like we ought to adjourn -- I'm not suggesting this. I'm just throwing it out -- adjourn and take -- if you guys agree with me, have the approach of taking what is here now and seeing where our lawyers think we ought to trim it up. That seems like the right approach, rather than the approach we're taking. And there may be some back office stuff going on I don't know about. Maybe that is the approach we took, but it doesn't seem like that. MR. BOSI: What I -- what I could say, Commissioner Vernon, is we didn't start over again. What we did is we took a scalpel -- we took a hatchet to this. We didn't scalpel. We took a hatchet. And it was influenced by the ineffectiveness of the regulations that we were being sued upon. That was the motivation of why we took such draconian steps to minimize what was required. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, then the question becomes, could we try it again and take a scalpel instead of a hatchet and protect the -- protect the county from extensive litigation and still keep in place a lot of protections that were well thought out from a right and wrong standpoint? MR. BOSI: I think that's what you're going to get from this hearing. I think you're going to get the skinny version, or the drastic reductions that staff is proposing. You're going to have comments from the public from two affected golf courses that are going to raise issues that they feel were maybe more important and shouldn't be eliminated, and there's going to be staff's original effort that's going to go to the Board of County Commissioners and whatever is going to be recommended by the Planning Commission as well to be an alternative to what staff has provided. COMMISSIONER VERNON: My only problem with that -- and I think -- I listen -- I think everybody knows, I listen to the public a lot, but to me, I'm not -- I think the public input is not as valuable as it might be in a lot of other cases because I don't need them to convince me to protect what we already have which protects them. I'm already -- that's been done. I'm more interested in how do we protect us from valid Bert Harris claims by developers or applicants. To me, that's not really a public issue. It's a legal issue. And so I'm throwing this -- and I don't usually do this, but it seems like the bulk of the work here, thought process, should be from our lawyers, not our staff and not the public. Because we have a system. We're just -- I think the commissioners don't want to get sued every week on a Bert Harris claim on this. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you only have nine communities that could do that that you're worried about. Two of them are in the room. Isn't that what you said? MR. BOSI: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The input that we received from the litigation team was to add one sentence, okay. So -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Who's the litigation team, I should ask? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Jeff Klatzkow and a few of the litigators. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, it's your colleagues? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it's from our in-house litigation team, was to add one sentence. Now, when this went to the Board -- because it's gone to the Board two different times. One based on the direction Mr. Klatzkow wanted, and then the second time the Board directed, "Go through it. See what you can get rid of," rather than repealing the whole thing. So that's why 5.A.b Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 51 of 85 staff undertook trying to make it easier for everyone, because it was also difficult for staff to implement. But we can go back to the -- if you feel that changes shouldn't be made, then we can do the very minimal change needed to protect it from Bert Harris claims. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What was the one -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: The minimal change that's been made was a one-sentence addition by the litigation team, which makes perfect sense to me. "Hey, litigators, how do we need to change this?" "Okay. We're going to add a sentence." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It went back to the county commissioners. They said, "That's not good enough." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, it didn't go back to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners has directed twice to proceed and do LDC amendments to this section. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Ashton, what is that sentence? Can you quote it, or -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's the one -- oh, go ahead. MR. BOSI: It's 8. It's on your screen. "Notwithstanding, the Board has the authority to grant deviations at its sole discretion including, but not limited to, reduction of the greenway requirements." CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now, let me ask that -- because that -- I had a fair amount to say on that sentence. Doesn't the Board have sole discretion to grant deviations and variations from almost everything, if not everything in the LDC? Why is this any different? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That was one of the arguments that the property owners were making based on some of the language that's in this section. They thought it was contradictory. And so that sentence would have clarified any controversy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it raises -- the negative inferences are very powerful because then you look at all the other cases where the language doesn't say "sole discretion." You're going to create arguments that the Board doesn't have its sole discretion to grant those deviations. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I think -- just to jump in so I understand. I think what the Chairman's saying is implicitly that's the case with everything, but the applicants were using the lack of this sentence as an excuse to say, "There's no discretion"; therefore, it's too onerous, blah, blah, blah; therefore, I have a valid claim, and the litigators are saying, "If you add this sentence explicitly, then we protect ourselves in the courtroom by having this sentence being clear even though it may already be implicit." Is that what you're saying? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. There is some text within the section itself that provided an argument for the property owners to say, "No, there is no flexibility." Mr. Bosi had reviewed the LDC section. He's the interpreter of the code, and he said, "Yes, the Board has the ability." But we're still getting the Bert Harris claims, and that's why the litigation department recommended the language that they did. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Wait, wait. Okay. The last part you said, "Recommended the language they did," is that what we're looking at now? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Number 8. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Number 8. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, No. 8. Just No. 8. Well, I mean, if that's all they recommended, what I'm getting from that is this may -- well, then you said they're still getting the claims, so then -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that language -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't know. Maybe we're just doing this -- and I'm being thickheaded about it. But it just seems like all we need to do other than to get something that the commissioners will agree to -- because if we can't get something the commissioners will 5.A.b Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 52 of 85 agree to, we're wasting our time, because they're going to do what they want. So I want -- but other than that, all we need to do is we need some good lawyers to say, "If we have this, this, and this, we will be insulated from valid or arguably valid Bert Harris claims." You can never insulate from bogus Bert Harris claims. But I don't think the applicants -- with the quality of attorneys they have, I don't think they're going to just file a completely bogus claim unless then they can bully the county, which, you know, arguably that's what's going on here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it is. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But I think -- I think if we bulletproof ourself a little bit more -- and maybe it's just one sentence. Maybe it's a little bit more -- than we just take one of them on, and then we're done -- we win it and we're done with it if we're on strong legal ground. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to call on Commissioner Schumacher, who's been waiting patiently. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Mike, quick question. So nine out of 72 are not surrounded by a neighborhood. So those that are not part of PUD -- I'm going to try to go backwards on this because you said there's, like, two different zonings. So if a developer back in, I don't know, the '70s, right, developed a golf course and owned the land around it and then started selling lots off around the golf course -- so that's basically one owner who's now selling the lots to different developers, so on and so forth. Like Palm River. Let's take Palm River, for example. That's a good one. It was a public golf course, and then LaPlaya bought it and turned it private, but all those homes around there that were built, that whole thing would have been, basically, one developer who then just sold lots. So if that's two different zonings, of course, the homes -- some of them may have memberships, some of them don't, whatever. But that golf course wasn't part of the PUD. But the intent originally was this developer owned all this land, he built this golf course, then he put these homes and sold the homes to different developers, whatever, and that's a different zoning. Could we go back to those and kind of put it back under a PUD and say, "That was the original intent" versus, like, a developer coming in saying, "Well, this golf course is defunct. I want to build this on here even though it's surrounded by all these homes," and that was the original intent was for it to be a golf course versus a golf course that has nothing surrounding it so there isn't an impact to those residents surrounding but in another neighborhood it would? Like, do you understand what I'm saying? Is there any -- how do we -- MR. BOSI: Well, I would say that we don't have the right to be able to go back and revert and try to -- based upon intent. But what would happen and what has been in the place of Riviera is there, is there's remnants of that connectivity between their golf course and the residential development. And in the case of Riviera, Riviera has a component towards where the golf course is, by the Water Management District, the area for where the stormwater is to be maintained. So their argument -- if Riviera -- which went through the intent-to-convert process. They could -- the developer of that golf course could submit a rezone application. What they would argue, though, is that this golf course is essentially tied to our residential development, and unless they can provide the assurance that that stormwater could be handled in a different way, then that's -- that's not something that they could legally do. But they could also make the argument that shows the relationship that these -- this -- our residential houses have with this golf course, therefore supporting why they should -- why the Board of County Commissioners would not approve that rezoning, because of that relationship. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Gotcha. No, that's -- I'm trying to just figure out a way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike, you said something about the golf course property 5.A.b Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 53 of 85 was deemed an area that was identified as stormwater management? MR. BOSI: Within -- within the plats, yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And they're recorded drainage easements against many of the courses that those drainage easements, the land rights have to be resolved before they can go through their rezoning, or they can complete their rezoning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Regardless of the intent to convert, if I were to go in there and develop today, I would still have to go through the ERP process, environmental resource permit process. I may have to go through -- there may be jurisdictional wetlands. And for my colleagues, they would do a JD, jurisdictional determination. It may require a Section 404 permit from the Clean Water Act, which would then trigger consultation of other federal agencies. It does not preclude or circumvent any requirement for federal permitting or through state permitting. So if it's identified as a stormwater management area, if I were the developer, I have to come in with all my calculations, I have to demonstrate that I can capture this water, store this water, and displace this water, and I have to have -- of the 90 acres or 100 acres that's developable, I may only be able to develop 20 acres. That's not the county's problem. That's the developer's problem. It's not a Bert Harris. If the developer is concerned about stormwater -- has to meet stormwater management requirements, that's part of the ERP process, South Florida Water Management District. It's separate from the intent to convert. That's -- and likewise with the contamination. Water -- a 401 water-quality certification for arsenic or other types of requirements that are required by the State, those are -- those are requirements regardless of what I'm going to do. Again, I don't understand how the county has to worry about whether I take something away from a developer, because that developer still has to go through the permitting process whether it's -- whether it's a jurisdictional determination through the feds, whether it's the Endangered Species Act. It could be sensitive habitat or water quality. Those -- MR. BOSI: This isn't being motivated by a concern for the developer. This is being motivated by the number of Bert Harris claims we've had against us because of the intent-to-convert process that's on the books. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the -- again, the Bert Harris claim -- the Bert Harris claim is not -- he can claim all he wants, but he can go fight the feds then, he or she, the developer. They've got to meet the requirements of the State. And there are -- there are strict rules right now in the State to convert golf courses to ensure that there's -- the soil contamination -- because over the years -- it's a lot better now than it had been, but fertilizers and other types of things that are used. They have to go through arsenic determination. They have to go through all the other requirements for water quality and other requirements from a developer -- from the standpoint of soil contamination. Those -- those are covered, I guess, in the intent, but we don't waive those. You can attempt to waive them, but you cannot -- you cannot forgive them of that requirement. So I mean -- so, again, I look at this and say, well, if he -- if the developer believes that they're being denied development, go complain to the South Florida Water Management District or go to the feds and sue them. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Chair, can I -- I was trying to finish what -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, go ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: How many of those -- what I was getting at was how many of those was that type of instance where a developer built a golf course, owned all the land, and then sold off the lots around it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Do we know? MR. BOSI: The only thing I can think is there's nine individual golf courses that are 5.A.b Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 54 of 85 zoned golf course and have residential development that are -- that are in its own separate zoning district. So I can -- I can -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The reason I'm saying that is because when that developer built that golf course then sold those lots, that lot that abutted the golf course was worth more money than the one that would have been across the golf street. Even if they didn't get a membership, it was still worth more because of the view, and that's what I'm trying to dig down to. Because if then -- if they try to sell it to somebody else who then wants to put houses there, you're taking away from the original intent as presented by that developer. Okay. I'm done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck, that's a good question. I don't know that answer. You know, even when we -- that was one of the reasons why, when we looked at this in 2017, we were -- we did this in a way to -- I'll quote, "protect" what was a perceived view corridor and view right, and I know it's legally -- I can't guarantee that, but it was an intent to somehow say, you purchased this house on a golf course whether it was separate and -- separate and distinct from the golf course itself or part of when the golf course was developed. But we were looking at trying to ensure that at least they'd get some protection. That led to the greenway. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The original intent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The original intent was the developer built this golf course then sold this lot for more money than he would have for one across the street because it looked at a golf course. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's correct. Absolutely right. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So that's kind of what I was trying to figure out because that's where I would -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a good question. We never addressed that issue back then. Which came first, the golf course or the house, or did the golf course come in? It was the same -- the chicken or the egg. We -- I think it was at that time Riviera was -- I believe the golf course was there many years before the houses were built. It's similar -- I mean, I'll give you an example. Where I live in Fiddler's Creek, the golf course out there, the Marriott golf course was out there for years before the -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Before anybody else was. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before the Fiddler's Creek development came in. But now it sort of became part of it, but it's -- this never became a PUD. It was just a residential community built around -- probably a golf course built, I don't know when, in the '70s I think some of those go back. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Wow. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a good question. I don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Sure. I wanted to address your point related to the Board's ability to deviate from all portions of the LDC -- or similar portions to the LDC. 5.05 has a specific provision that states that deviations of LDC Section 5.05.15, which is the golf course conversion, shall be prohibited. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. MR. BOSI: The golf course conversion process says the Board of County Commissioners can't deviate from this process except for within G. G.2.B -- or 2.A does say, "The Board may approve an alternative design" -- it's talking about the greenway. It says, "The Board may approve an alternative design that was vetted at the stakeholder outreach meetings as provided for within the section." So in one section it says you can't deviate from any portion of it, and then the one portion does says about the greenway, the greenway has an average width of 75 feet. It requires 100 foot but can't go below 75 feet. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 55 of 85 The Board does have the ability per 5.05.15 to have an alternative design to that -- specifically related to that provision, but then it says you can't deviate from any other section of the intent-to-convert, and that's a portion of what has been a little bit of ambiguity in terms of the application of the code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that prohibition language -- it seems as though a lot of the concerns that I've heard from the Planning Commission would be obviated if you just took that language out. I mean, we don't need to create a sole discretion standard, because the Board has the discretion to do what it wants with the LDC unless it's already closed the door, as apparently it did with this prohibition language. Take the prohibition language out. Wouldn't that solve the problem? MR. BOSI: That most certainly would give the Board a much greater degree of flexibility in terms of what they ultimately would be allowed to decide upon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm trying to figure out how we're going to proceed with this, because -- I want to do two things. Maybe you can highlight the significant changes, but I'm really anxious to hear from the public, because whether you call it an intent-to-convert or NIM 1 or NIM 2, I don't care what we call it. Somehow these names came up years ago, but the fact is it was intended to notice them, allow them to provide input, hopefully the developer and the community would work together to create what was the conversion and the acceptable green space. That was -- that was what the intent was. So I don't know how we want to proceed. If you want to just highlight and go through the changes, then we could hear the public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a very good question, and I was going to try to address it, and then I'll ask Mr. Bosi also to do so. My recommendation is, is that we go through what staff has prepared -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and provide our input. We also hear from the public and from counsel for the various homeowners associations and get all of those ideas in place, and then find out from Mr. Bosi where the county has issues with our proposed changes and where it would concede those, and then continue this and have staff come back with whatever changes staff believes it wants to make based upon what it's heard from the public and what it's heard from the Planning Commission. And we may go forward with the Planning Commission recommendation and staff's recommendation or, more preferably, we may go forward with something that we can all sign up to. Does that sound right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, Commissioner Vernon. And, I'm sorry, Mr. Bosi. Let Commissioner Vernon go, and then I'll ask you to talk. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So following the Chairman's suggestion, as we go through this, are we going to be looking at a redline version of what was put together in 2017? MR. BOSI: We have a redline version. Almost the entire -- almost the entire process is redlined, but I'll go through it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's what we're -- that's what we're going to go through. So we're going to see the original -- MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then the other question is for Heidi on -- the Chairman mentioned about -- well, you mentioned and then the Chairman commented on that there is prohibition language in there, and if we remove that, as the Chairman says, is that one -- I guess the question, is that one of the key elements -- and I'm sure there's more than one -- but is that one of the key elements of the three Bert Harris Act claims that there is that prohibition in there? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 56 of 85 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. The width of the greenway is an issue in each of the cases. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The width of the greenway but also the lack of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Discretion. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Discretion, thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: What I would say, overall for the intent-to-convert process, so this is how it works: For -- to convert a golf course from its current GC zoning district to an alternative use, before they're even allowed to submit a rezoning application, they have to go through the intent-to-convert process, and that requires two SOM meetings. There's a lot of procedural things that they have to do that -- that help promote or are trying to promote dialogue. But I think where you're going to hear the objections from the public is related to the green-space requirements, the greenway requirements, and the open-space requirements. Those are the things that have to carry over and be incorporated withinto whatever development that is being proposed. How they -- how they exchange the dialogue in terms of the stakeholder outreach meeting, the visual survey preference, these type of things, those are just to promote better dialogue. But the hard components, I think, that are most important to the communities that surround the golf courses that would be eventually -- would be the greenway buffers that are provided that are instructed to be 100 feet along the outside of any converted golf course as well as the open-space requirements and the tree requirements. So think about those as we're going through the things that are being proposed as a replacement and then as I go through the redlines, and then I think you're going to probably -- you'll hear the perspective -- the public will be able to provide the clarification if I was offset on any one of those areas. So looking at what staff had proposed, we had said instead of having those two stakeholder outreach meetings that are required, we're saying a neighborhood information meeting is required after a pre-application meeting is held. They have to -- they have to have a neighborhood information meeting before they could submit an application. That's intended to try to promote that dialogue that we said. Let's have the developer hear what their concerns are and maybe find some areas of agreement that they're able to incorporate withinto whatever they're being proposed, but also -- and this is really important -- is No. 3, under D, a title report that identifies the current owner of the property and all encumbrances that are required as part of a rezone or an SRA application. That really gives us the understanding of this golf course. Does it have any drainage commitments? How is it tied -- you know, what are -- what are the easement restrictions that would be associated that we have to know about before we go to -- before we go -- or when we go through a rezone application, because those are things that are going to dictate, you know, what needs -- you know, where the priorities -- or what things need to be taken care of. Then we retain -- we retain the greenway requirements of a proposed conversion. It's supposed to be continuous [sic] to the existing residents and all properties surrounding the existing golf course and shall generally be located on the perimeter, maintaining an average width of 50 feet. That's a reduction from the 100 feet that's currently required by the code, and I think that's obviously going to be something that the surrounding property owners are probably concerned about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not only a reduction, but it's also based upon an average calculation. MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. The greenway may be counted towards open-space requirement for the project as 5.A.b Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 57 of 85 established by LDC 4.02. That's another component that's retained. The greenway has always been able to be counted towards the open space of the proposed development. Existing trees and understories encouraged to be preserved and maintained within the greenway with minimal improvements needed to provide for -- and the canopy tree, the ratio is basically the same as what's contained within it. So that's another hard fact, a hard commitment that has been retained from the intent-to-convert that has to be provided for within the new development. Greenways shall not include the required yards of any proposed individual lots. That's another one that's retained from the current development -- or the current ITC requirement. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed development, but if it is, it has to be connected in a way to allow for wildlife to have movement within those facilities. A portion of the greenway may be -- may provide stormwater management; however, the greenways shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake areas that existed pre-conversion of the greenway, another component that was carried over from the ITC to the proposed amendment. Another one, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant at the time of the subdivision or plat or SDP, describe the use, maintenance of the greenway, and who's to take care of it related to the zoning action. That's another one that was carried over from the existing regulations. And then, finally, 8 we spoke about. That's the one that we did from the legal team that said that we absolutely needed to have this in here, and the Board has the ability and authority to grant deviations as a sole discretion, not limited to but including the reduction within the greenway. Now, I will say that currently within the existing -- the existing regulations, as I pointed it out, it does give the Board the ability to provide alternative designs if they were spoken about during any SOMs. So that's -- that provision takes the existing provision that gives the Board some limited discretion in terms of deviation and expands it, and we do not retain that prohibition of any other deviations against 5.05.15. So that is -- that -- not carrying that restriction over doesn't give the Board more flexibility to be able to deviate from anything that has a dimensional standard. Because the way that the Board operates is anything that has a dimensional standard within our Land Development Code, you can seek a deviation from. You can't seek deviations from use. They're not allowed to do use variances. But you can seek a deviation from anything that's dimensional. So that restriction that is currently in 5.05.15 that the Board can't make any deviations other than what's the greenway, that's been removed. And then now I will just kind of highlight, the next seven to eight pages are the existing regulations as they exist. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you do so, I'm trying to decide what is really the best and most efficient way for us to proceed. And I'm going to offer this to the Board, and whatever the Board decides is what we'll do. We now -- we now have the proposed new 5.05.15 in front of us, and it's all blue language. So a page and a half. I probably have six comments addressed to this, and then I probably have a greater number -- I know it's a greater number of comments addressed to what is being taken out, that is to say the things that are redlined. But they're kind of two separate subjects, the way I see them. And so my idea would be that we pause -- that we ask Mr. Bosi to pause for a moment while we offer our comments to the proposed new stuff and then see how we go after that with respect to what is being removed from the old stuff. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Bosi, is that okay with you? MR. BOSI: Sure. Your discretion, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is signaling at this point. Why don't I start, if I may. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 58 of 85 And so this is -- it starts at Page 799 of 850 of the packet, and it's the beginning of the blue lined -- the blueline language, 5.05.15, conversion of golf courses. Subsection Capital A says, "The purpose of this section is to require an additional step of public involvement and to add a greenway requirement." I would respectfully submit that the language goes far beyond those two stated purposes. In some ways taking away from them, in some ways adding provisions that don't relate to either of those two. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know, but I just don't think that that sentence is a fair statement of what then follows. Then I'll just continue here, and we can talk about it. Then in C.3, "Golf courses that do not abut and/or are not adjacent to." So my question is, but residences could still be close by but not directly adjacent to, and we talked about this in my meeting with staff on Tuesday. And the example I use is, what about if there's a road that comes between the resident's property and the golf course proper? Does that -- does that break the continuity? And I believe -- I believe, Mr. Bosi, you said that it breaks the abutment but not the adjacency. MR. BOSI: Yeah, the adjacency still provides that that would be -- the relationship would be there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And then I go to D.2 after the "completing the required pre-submittal NIM." So now there would be two NIMs, a pre-submittal and a post submittal. But at present, before this were to be changed, you've got two SOMs and one NIM. And so my question is, is how is the public better served by having two NIMs versus three opportunities for input? MR. BOSI: I'm not sure if the public is better served. This was a reflection that the outcomes of the SOMs did not yield the benefits that were expected. So the idea was this was that first opportunity for the public, before an application is submitted, to identify the issues most important to them or the most concerning to them to the development community. If you would think that it would be improved by two individual NIMs before an application was submitted, I'll defer to, you know, the Planning Commission's discretion on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure we need three of anything. But I guess my question is, is that what does a -- what would one NIM accomplish that two SOMs wouldn't accomplish? Because you say the outcome was is that we weren't getting agreement. We weren't getting public -- MR. BOSI: My estimation is that pre-submittal NIM would probably have the same results that the SOMs have, is that there would just be entrenchment in terms of the residents not wanting the development and the developer saying that they had to convert their golf course to an alternative use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But -- so staff believes that there is a greater likelihood of some concessions being made by the developer if it takes the format of one NIM versus two SOMs? MR. BOSI: Staff feels that there's not a tremendous amount of concessions that are made, whether there's one, two, four, or six. We're proposing one in the hope that there could be some compromise or there could be some issues that were identified prior to an application that could inform that application of those concerns. But having two NIMs doesn't seem like it's a benefit, in staff's perspective, from what we've experienced from the entrenchment of both parties during this process, that we found that those outcomes aren't yielding themselves. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to jump in on this point? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, because I just want to make sure we don't create this new definition of a NIM. A NIM is nothing more than the developer advising the community of the intent of the rezone and to garner input. It is not a staff meeting. It is not an approval meeting. Staff is only there to record and to assure the public that the staff POC is identified, and if any issues, they can contact that point of contact. The NIM is not an agreement process. It's just nothing more than an information meeting. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 59 of 85 So that's -- I think that's why we avoided calling it a NIM in the first place, because the intent-to-convert was to receive input from the community and hopefully that, between the developer and the community, would make adjustments accordingly. MR. BOSI: That's really what our NIMs are, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they are. Yeah, I agree. That's what a NIM is. But it's not meant to come to a resolution. It's nothing more than an information process. I don't know. I just want to make sure we don't -- MR. BOSI: And I think the stakeholder outreach meetings were intended and similar -- in the similar vein -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it was. MR. BOSI: -- trying to promote that conversation. I'm not sure if we expected that resolution was going to be provided. But the intent of why we crafted it the way we did with all of the procedures was trying to find areas of compromise. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further to that point -- and I agree with what you said -- I would take it an additional step that if we were going to go from two SOMs to one NIM -- which you can make a case for it, but I want to be sure that all of the current NIM rules would apply to both NIMs -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- including the full transcript. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. That's what I -- basically, we don't now change the definition of a NIM. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. No, no. I'm not looking to put more -- more content into the NIM, but I just want it to be the same kind of a NIM that we already have, just the timing is is it occurs pre-application. All right. I'm going to retain the floor, if I may -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- for a moment, and then I'll be finished with the blue underlining. The -- E.1, average width, when you have average width, of course, that could result in, at some points in the perimeter, there being no separation at all because the average there would be zero, and you'd have to have 100 feet somewhere else in order to balance it out. And I could -- I could find some numbers that I could be comfortable with, but they would involve also having a "but not less than," a minimum, a floor, if you will. In other words, an average width of X, but not less than X -- not less than Y. So that's a comment that I have on that. Then on E.3, there's this word "encouraged" again that I raised with Mr. Weeks, and he and I had comments about this back in the days of Rivergrass, that it really is a word that means nothing and requires nothing, and I just -- I don't like language like that. I mean, either -- either trees and understory shrubs should be required to be preserved, or we take the language out. But "encouragement" is just wasting words because it's -- you know, it doesn't accomplish anything. MR. BOSI: And I would say we'd still have that minimum requirement for the tree ratio in terms of the one to 2,000 square feet, one tree per every 2,000 square feet of the greenway. So we are encouraging more than that, but we're requiring the minimum of that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I get that. MR. BOSI: And we can strike that if that's the discretion of the Planning Commission, because it doesn't do anything, like you said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We saw -- yeah. Thinking back to the Rivergrass experience, there was an effort on the part of Mr. Weeks to encourage a lot of things, but they were ignored, and they were ignored by a developer who was acting within his rights. So the teaching of that matter to me was -- is that this is a legally nugatory or nullity and shouldn't -- shouldn't be included in here. That's just -- so I'm just putting these ideas out. I'm not 5.A.b Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 60 of 85 trying to resolve anything at this point. Then I go down to Section 7, "The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant." And Mr. Bosi and I spoke about this on Tuesday. I just wanted to insert the word "perpetual," because that -- and I think that's what staff intended, and I think Mr. Bosi agrees to that; do you not, sir? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Then it gets to 8, Section 8. "The Board has the authority to grant deviations at its sole discretion," I didn't know when I raised this at our Tuesday meeting that there was this prohibition language. It's in here, but I just hadn't seen it. And so something needs to be done about the prohibition language, I believe, because I don't think the Board of County Commissioners should tie its hands with respect to anything since it doesn't have any more of a crystal ball than we do. And my solution would be to delete the prohibition rather than introducing new concepts like "sole discretion," because if you -- if you were to include that comment in here, you have this -- what is this expression, "expressio unius exclusio alterius," which means if you say something in one place, then you raise a question of whether it doesn't exist in all the other places where you could have said it. So you're creating problems by doing it. Did I say that right, Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think you just made that up. I don't think that's actually a term. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You want to see if you could get away with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He called me. I quit. No, I -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You lawyers. My God. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you can take it -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I'll stick up for us engineers. Come on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I've got some more Latin for you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I didn't understand a word he said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here's one for you to add a little levity in the room. Semper ubi sub ubi. Do you know what that means? Always wear underwear. Thank you very much. All right. Now -- so to get serious again, if I may. I just don't think it's a good idea to introduce a sole discretion concept into the Land Development Code. I think the solution is to take the prohibition language out and give the Board of County Commissioners the authority to do what they have in all other respects in here, which is to grant deviations. So that takes me through the blue language. Does anybody else want to be heard on the blue language without reference to Latin? Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And at the -- and it's really not -- it's a big picture, and I'm probably being a little stubborn here. But I want to say this a different way. I think what's driving the county commissioners, what's driving this, the only thing is we're getting sued on Bert Harris Act claims. I'm operating under the assumption that in 2017 there was a really good, solid process, and Commissioner Schmitt's indicated this, that this was well thought out and well put together. And at the end of the day, assuming the county commissioners buy into whatever we're suggesting, there's going to be a litigator; a trial lawyer's got to walk into court. And if there's four or five bases for the Bert Harris Act claims, the three that have been made, probably most of the allegations have already been asserted. And I would very much like our litigators to go in and say, we address these five points and that's it. Because if we start changing stuff that is not the basis for the Bert Harris Act claims, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 61 of 85 those good lawyers representing the developers are going to come in and say, "Oh, they totally rewrote this," and we're just going to give them more ammunition. So I don't want to give or take away -- I mean, the whole purpose of this, I think, was to protect residents, and I'm not interested in taking away any residents' rights unless it is subjecting us to a Bert Harris Act claim, but I'm also not interested in trying to tweak it to make it better, only because I think it's going to make the litigator's job, the person representing the county's job harder in defending the Bert Harris Act claim. So that's the reason I'm being sort of stubborn about this. And let's just make the changes we have to make and leave the rest alone. And I'm assuming it was done well the first time, other than the Bert Harris claims. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm in general agreement with that. I'd also caution that if we're -- the only thing, I think -- and please, County Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong -- there may be some adjacency requirements and standing issues. But Bert Harris was -- is not just a pro-developer protection. It's also calculated to protect the property interests of adjacent landowners. And let's not lose sight of that, because if adjacent landowners get together and manage to raise sufficient funds to hire a big-time law firm to bring a Bert Harris claim, we've got a Bert Harris claim again. And so while I applaud all efforts to save taxpayers money by avoiding unnecessary litigation, let's keep in mind that Bert Harris could be a two-way street. Now -- so here we are at the redlining. And, Mr. Bosi, I think you're proposing that you take us through the high points of what has been -- what are you suggesting? MR. BOSI: I can do that, or we can -- I mean, you can open it up to the public to hear what their concerns are to have a better context so when we review what's being removed, you could hear -- and I think what they're probably going to do is probably point out the areas where they have some objections to things being removed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, as do I. And I think that's a good suggestion. What about the Planning Commission? Should we go right to the public at this point? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I like that idea. And, again, you probably -- most of you have never seen me before, but, you know, I usually very much want to listen to the public. All I -- I think I'm being clear. I'm -- and this is just me, not everybody, but I'm not interested in making any changes to this thing because I think it's pretty public friendly other than to protect against a valid Bert Harris Act claim. So I don't -- I don't need to hear 40 people -- this is just me. I don't need to hear 40 people say, "Let's make a change" other than what I just said. And I don't know that -- I see -- I'm guessing that's an attorney over there that you're -- somebody's represented. So, you know, I'm sure your attorney will speak for you. So I'm not trying to prevent anybody from talking, but I'm just saying I don't -- you've heard what I've said. So I don't know that I need to hear the same thing over and over, is what I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's good. And I think -- I want to be liberal, as we hear these, to allow Mr. Bosi or other members of staff to comment immediately after a member of the public says what they have to say so that we have the continuity, and I think that would be a pretty effective substitute for, Mr. Bosi, you going through in advance, if that's agreeable with you. MR. BOSI: I take the discretion of the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so I -- let's see. We've got -- we have two lawyers out there who are representing groups? MR. BOSI: I believe Mr. Pires and Mr. Lombardo are here for Lakewood. I'm not -- Mr. Lombardo is here, I know. I think that's the only -- we have the written document that was provided by Ms. Berkey, but I don't believe she is -- MS. CAMBELL: She's on Zoom. MR. BOSI: Oh, she's on Zoom. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 62 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: She's on the phone, do you say? MS. CAMBELL: I believe she is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. So Mr. Pires and Mr. Lombardo are from the same firm? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He says no one's on the phone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one's on the phone. MR. BOSI: We have Zoom speakers, but I don't believe Ms. Berkey is on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Well, we've got her -- I was hoping she would be here because she made some very good comments. They appear as those balloon comments in one of the iterations of the staff redlining that we had. Many are self-explanatory, and we can just go through her comments and take them for what they're worth and have staff respond. So unless there's objection from the Planning Commission, I'm going to suggest that we start off with the lawyers and, within a reasonable amount of time, present their points of view so that we can consider them, and we'll give staff an opportunity on the spot to respond and us, of course, to ask questions and make comments. Does anybody object to that approach? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then that's how we'll proceed. Mr. Lombardo. MR. LOMBARDO: Good afternoon. For the record, Zach Lombardo here on behalf of Lakewood Community Services Association. For reference, Tony's associate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And you've been sworn in, sir? MR. LOMBARDO: I don't know that I was sworn in, but is this a quasi-judicial hearing? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, it's not. Thank you. Never mind. MR. LOMBARDO: I'm happy to be. I'll be honest. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no. We're going to take you as George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you're absolutely right, this is not quasi-judicial. MR. LOMBARDO: Before getting into some of my more specific comments on the proposal, I did want to comment a little bit about the Bert Harris observations, because I think this is a very important part of this process. There are two filed lawsuits that I'm aware of. If there are more, I think that should be more specifically outlined to you-all so you can see specifically what these claims are. The most recently filed one, 2024-CA-315 involving the Riviera course, this has been stayed. The county filed a motion to stay and contingently a motion to dismiss for ripeness issues, kind of addressing some of the comments you-all had made about how could there be a Bert Harris claim at this point in this process? So the county has taken this position. The case has been stayed because, in a separate action, there's a question about what restrictions, what private restrictions apply to that property and whether it can be changed from a golf course at all. So that claim at the current status isn't in a -- in a place where it can provide helpful instructions as to what the problem is because the Court hasn't weighed in at all as to whether it believes it's a valid claim. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for that information. It also means that we're not under unusual pressure to get this resolved, and if we do send it back, if we continue this for further drafts, we're not going to be slowing down the process. MR. LOMBARDO: That's certainly my observation, but I absolutely would defer to your counsel. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. LOMBARDO: The other, an older case, 2023-CA-1795, Naples Golf Development, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 63 of 85 this one I think is important to point out, that is not a golf course zoned property. It's an agriculturally zoned property, so it's a little bit of an apples-and-orange issue when it comes to this particular situation. And in that case, your attorneys have filed a motion for summary judgment that is being heard in September. And I want to point out, there's a great line at the end of the motion. This is the County Attorney's, Greg Woods' writing. "If plaintiff would simply stop using the property as a golf course and use it only as a residential property, as it claims it wishes to do, the county would have no grounds to attempt to apply the golf course conversion ordinance to the property." That's the county's motion. So the significance of pointing this out is that property seems to be in a very different position than a lot of what the residents here are in and a lot of what this typically applies to, which is the nine neighborhoods where there are golf course zoned properties in the middle of them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What was that other property, then? MR. LOMBARDO: This is the Naples Golf Development case, which I believe this property is -- MR. BOSI: The Links of Naples down on the East Trail, the one -- I believe they have night golf there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. LOMBARDO: And that's -- that -- and in the summary judgment motion, your attorneys are also arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to follow various processes. And there will be a hearing on this, according to the docket, in September. And so I think after September, you-all will have a lot more information as to validity of these claims, because I think reacting to the filing of a lawsuit is very different than reacting to, for example, losing at trial or losing at summary judgment. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But The Links -- there's no homes around The Links, per se. There's nothing out there. MR. BOSI: There's -- there's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They were -- that was an intent-to-convert as well? MR. BOSI: They were instructed that they had to follow the intent-to-convert. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh. MR. BOSI: And that's one of the improvements we've made is to clarify that that would not -- that would not fall within the intended process for intent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree, but I'd defer to the County Attorney. But I have to agree, that probably would not have been required to go through an intent-to-convert because there's really nothing else out there. There's car storage and some other things. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're probably not going to get too much out of the County Attorney because it's pending. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That's right. Enough said. MR. LOMBARDO: And I just -- my only point is, let's look at the filed claims and make sure that we're addressing them. And I would submit that one is an orange to these apples, and the other one is way too early to decide. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. LOMBARDO: Getting into the actual proposed amendments here, the -- in the staff report, there's a statement that what was attempted to be accomplished here was to require preservation of a portion of the greenway in a proposed conversion project. And I think the major objection coming from Lakewood is that these changes really eviscerate that concept. And the first place I'd like to point to is under the new 5.05.15.E in the greenway requirements, this average width of 50 feet. In addition to objecting to the idea of switching to an average measurement tool, the prior standard was -- had an average of 100 with a minimum of 75. That's in G.2.B of the current ordinance. So dropping down to 50, removing any minimum, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 64 of 85 and -- it leads to a situation where I think you do step into this space where Bert Harris claims can go different directions. So the standard is an inordinate burden to property. There are questions about investment-backed expectations. And so the whole concept here is to protect property owners who bought on an open space, essentially. And so the greenway piece of this is a critical component to make sure that the open space piece is preserved. And if we're doing averages, that means behind one particular house maybe we can get down to two or three feet as long as this is a long enough greenway span. So it's -- if we're getting to the point that there is going to be a general ability for the County Commission to allow for deviation, which I don't know that we're contesting that point, why would we change the base standards as well to remove this? Let's keep what we have, because that is not something that in and of itself is a problem, at least not that I'm aware of. So my second comment, similar to that, is that if we're going to add this sole discretion language -- I think you-all have thoroughly discussed this, and I think your analysis makes the most sense. Instead of saying "sole discretion," the prohibition can be removed, and it can be treated like the balance of the Land Development Code and not create a sort of alternative standard. Because there's more than just the Bert Harris law out there when it comes to how we regulate in local governments. One of the standards is that the decisions made by the governing bodies themselves cannot be arbitrary. There has to be some kind of framework for these things. So to put in language like "sole discretion," arguably a decision that could be made under that is simply, well, we would just like to not have a greenway here because four of us or three of us, whatever the standard is, feel that way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In other words, arbitrary. MR. LOMBARDO: Arbitrary. And so at the end of the day, that's not protecting the county because we're having an arbitrary and capricious issue. One note -- and I think this was present in the prior version, but if we're going to go back and do some cleanup, I think it's important to focus on consistency of language. And all of this, by the way, is in our submitted written materials. But when we're talking about the development that's around these golf courses, there's three different phrases used: Residentially zoned properties, residential development, and residential properties. I think this can be cleaned up to avoid some confusion to make sure that we're always talking about the same thing here when it comes to these properties. And I think some of that might help clean up this issue with The Links as to whether that was something that this should have triggered at all if we're very clear as to what the surrounding properties are to trigger this entire process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi and I talked about this on Tuesday, and my question was, is there any reason why we can't go to the term "residential uses" instead? And so I'd ask Mr. Bosi what staff's response is to Mr. Lombardo's point. MR. BOSI: That would trigger The Links of Naples to have to go through the process because it's zoned agricultural but there's residents' houses that are adjacent to that golf course; therefore, you can trigger it saying, because it's residentially used, therefore, the golf course conversion should apply. That's why we use "residentially zoned." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not a golf course. It's ag. MR. BOSI: It's developed as a golf course. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. It's being used as a golf course, but it's not zoned a golf course. It's ag. MR. BOSI: I don't believe the intent-to-convert requires that the golf course be zoned golf course. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it should be. I mean, that was the intent. Why would we prohibit -- 5.A.b Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 65 of 85 MR. BOSI: We can't go back and talk about -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You guys can -- you need to look at that. I mean, I would agree. MR. LOMBARDO: And to be clear, I'm not advocating -- we're not here saying it should say "residential use." I'm just saying it should be the same term, because you're using "residential development" in the current proposed new one, which would still trigger The Links because it's residential development. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I could put cows out there tomorrow. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So staff is going to take those comments and -- MR. LOMBARDO: And then turning a little bit to the things that have been deleted, there is a 5.05.15.G.1, previously approved open space. It talks about not being able to use this area for open space if it's previously approved for the project. This makes a lot of sense. A lot of these developments are using the golf course area as the open space for their development, and so we're -- you had language in here that acknowledged that, and that language has been stricken. I don't know if there's a reason for this or if that can be explained, but I didn't see it. And this may dovetail into Commissioner Schmitt's comment about these Environmental Resource Permits, because one thing we don't know -- and by the way, the county pointed this out in one of their motions in the Bert Harris claim. They filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join South Florida Water Management District because there are -- a lot of these golf courses are part of the stormwater permits for these developments. And so it's not accurate to say that the developer could come in and just do whatever they want on these golf courses. They'd have to solve the stormwater problem, which in some cases may not be possible, in which case I would suggest the county has no liability because -- because of an intervening cause, it would not be possible to redevelop these golf courses. But, obviously, that's your attorney's discretion to provide that. The design standards, the lighting, and the setback requirements in 5.05.15.H have been deleted. I don't know why those have been deleted. I don't know if there was a reason provided for that. There was some stormwater language in 15.G.4 that was deleted and, again, not sure why that would be pulled out. I mean, hopefully the South Florida standards would cause that strikeout to not be necessary, and maybe that's the reasoning. Maybe staff's consideration is that there's a second level of regulation here that would come in. But if that's the case, I think it should be explained. There is some language about tree removal -- hold on one second -- to address kind of the exotic and prohibited trees. I'm looking at 15.G.2. So -- but in general -- and I think our letter goes into some depth. And certainly Katie Berkey's letter. And hopefully she'll join Zoom -- goes into even greater depth with suggested edits. But I don't know that that approach -- and I agree with Commissioner Vernon on this. I don't know that this entire approach makes sense because you have, again, as I'm aware, two filed Bert Harris claims. If there's more, I think that should be put onto the record. And if we're just totally rewriting this system without understanding why we're totally rewriting the system -- for example, if we're rewriting it because of Links, which is not a property that we're all clear should be in the system and another one where the Court has taken no dispositive action whatsoever, that's a very reactive response to something that had an extensive amount of time going into these hearings, because this -- and I understand it's coming from the County Commission, and that's not a criticism of staff at all. But it does seem like what was talked about today is that there is very small adjustments that could be made that would aid the county's litigation efforts and manage the investment-backed expectations of all of the many homeowners that live around these golf courses. In Lakewood specifically, there's actually two golf courses. So there's two possible places where this could be triggered. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 66 of 85 And so if there's any -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. MR. LOMBARDO: -- specific questions. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Zach, I thank you for that. It's a good presentation -- that was a good presentation. Who are the -- if you know -- because it sounds like you've studied it. On the two cases -- it sounds like there's three, but you're aware of two. Is that one law firm bringing both cases; do you know? MR. LOMBARDO: No. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Are they in-town or out-of-town lawyers? MR. LOMBARDO: The Riviera case is Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh. MR. LOMBARDO: And the Naples Development case, I don't believe that's an in-town firm, but I have the signature block right here. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So Yovanovich is on one of them? MR. LOMBARDO: Yes. And then the other firm is Bartlett, Loeb, Hinds & Thompson out of Tampa for the Naples Golf Development. COMMISSIONER VERNON: They do a lot of land use? MR. LOMBARDO: I do not know, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then you -- I think you agree with the Chairman on the -- there's that prohibition language in there, and it's -- if we take the prohibition language in there, then we don't need Paragraph 8. I think that's what the Chairman's suggesting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: My only concern -- again, I always defer to the guy standing in the courtroom talking to the judge -- it's going to take a while -- it may take a while, depending on the judge and the situation, to explain, "Well, Judge, they have that discretion anyway." Even though, technically, the Chairman's right, is there a downside to simply adding that sentence so in court Greg Woods, or whoever's representing us, can say, "Judge, it's right here," as opposed to, "Well, Judge, they have that authority anyway," from your perspective? MR. LOMBARDO: From my perspective, and purely my perspective, obviously -- the County Attorney has to provide you advice. But from my perspective, the downside is creating something that is different than anywhere else in the Land Development Code and doing it in an extremely specific way that suggests an arbitrary level to it, because there is an existing practice for how the county handles deviations. It's understood, and it's throughout the code. So to specifically in this section use the phrase "sole discretion," I think opens up the county to a different type of exposure. But that's -- I don't -- again, I do agree with the concept that that's the direction of this amendment. It should be something more specific like that. I thought it was very interesting that County Attorney's review indicated there was one sentence to add, and that was it. And then what we're looking at is major changes. And so we -- I guess, if I had to summarize everything that we're saying on behalf of Lakewood, it's we would prefer that route. We think that's what makes the most sense, and we think that's what makes the most sense for the county given the two cases that we've looked at. But if you are going to get into it, we think some of these substantive provisions should be there, because even in the discretionary world where they have the ability to do deviations, it helps to have some framework as to what it should look like. So if they're going to have -- the Board's going to have the ability to do deviations, why are we worried about reducing the greenway size and removing the minimum size and switching to an average? It seems like it's too much of a reduction for no reason, because they have the discretion. If there's some compelling feature of the land or there's maybe, perhaps, a water feature that makes this very unworkable, that's the time when the county can -- and you-all can and the planners can find a way around this. But by keeping the baseline, the minimum widths and the higher averages, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 67 of 85 you're going to get a better result for the surrounding property owners, and I don't think it's unworkable for the developers. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So you like -- you like -- I'm just restating to make sure I understand. You like the simplistic approach used by the county, they simply added one sentence, but you'd probably do it -- and this is your opinion -- do it a little different. You'd do it like the Chairman's suggesting. You wouldn't add one sentence. You'd drop the prohibition language, and you'd be done? MR. LOMBARDO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And maybe if there -- if there's concern about doubt, you could say, "And for the avoidance of doubt, the deviations here should be treated exactly like other deviations in other circumstances." COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thoughts? MR. LOMBARDO: I think that would, again, kind of get into the territory of making it different than elsewhere in the Land Development Code. But I'm not -- that would be -- in my view, any version of that, including the one sentence, I think, would be preferable to rewriting all of the code, I think, is my bigger point here. I don't -- I'm certainly not your planner, and I'm not your attorney. But I feel that there's -- to go back to Commissioner Schmitt's point, there was a lot of work that went into this process, and the communities are clearly impacted by this. And, interestingly, this is a very narrow and specific issue because it's not -- it's really nine neighborhoods. And so when those people come out and show up and participate, I think it's important to listen to them. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you were to go with the existing text, you know, the LDC text as it exists without the proposed strikethroughs, you would still need the deviation language, because we have deviations expressly authorized by the PUD section, but we don't have it for conditional uses, and we don't have it for straight rezones. So you would need to have that added in. MR. LOMBARDO: And I think all we're looking to avoid is the "sole discretion" language. I think there needs to be some kind of basis for the deviation, so -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. LOMBARDO: -- deferring to your County Attorney, absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. That was a great presentation, Zach. I agree with the majority of what you said. The one thing I was kind of wondering, Lakewood's completely built out, no extra land could be developed. MR. LOMBARDO: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Traffic-wise, they probably see the same thing as everybody else during season, right? So if somebody was to put application in for something in Lakewood to build another residential community in there, that would, obviously, quadruple the amount of cars on their roads. MR. LOMBARDO: There's a significant concern about traffic with these applications. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I think that would be a good place to start with these is -- I know the traffic portion or transportation portion of it comes into play during the application process, but I think that when we're looking at this process, it needs to be presented up front that the current roadways, obviously, cannot be expanded to four lanes in most of these communities. They are what they are. They're already built. And that the additional transportation in there that would be over and above whatever the membership was for said golf course that was there previously, it would be too much of a strain on that transportation system within the community. I mean, does that make sense to you, Mike, or am I off -- or am I way off topic? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 68 of 85 MR. BOSI: Those would be -- those would be issues that would be analyzed during the rezone process. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Lombardo? MR. LOMBARDO: No. Thank you very much for receiving my comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Mike wants to say something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: I would point out that the comments that Zach made were exclusively really to the development standards contained in G within the intent-to-convert. Some of the issues that we have found with the stakeholder outreach meetings is to prescribe activities that the developers have to provide for in that regard, that they have to provide for specific alternative development statements. They have to provide for an aspect, a narrative of no conversion. They have to provide for a county purchase, a conceptual development plan that shows the various -- the various aspects for how they could -- they would redevelop. So I think some of those procedural steps were things that staff found that weren't yielding those results. But just to let you know that I think what you're going to hear -- the majority of the objections will be modifications that we -- are being proposed against the existing development standards that are contained in 5.05.15, because I didn't hear -- I didn't hear any objections to the removal of the -- some of -- the visual preference survey or the alternative development statements. There really wasn't any commentary towards that. So just in the back of your mind, as we're going through this, I think, try to focus upon if these are all on the development statements, then maybe that's -- that could be a course that we retain some of those or retain the majority of those based upon some of the decisions you want to make and the minimal amount of changes that you want to make, just for -- just for thought. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. LOMBARDO: Can I briefly respond to that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. LOMBARDO: Because, in part, my comments -- and typically in public comment we're sort of triaging with time. And so I think we're mainly -- we're mainly focused on the development standards because those are the long-ranging pieces that are going to impact these communities. But, again, our position is to go with the County Attorney's more scalpel approach which would leave all of those pieces in place, and I think it's a little hard to talk about some of those pieces because there are -- there's very helpful things that come out of these meetings, and one of the big pieces about all of those options is it helps tee up a better conversation, potentially, about the community purchasing the property. And I think -- I can't go into some details on some of that, but in Lakewood this has been somewhat effective to be able to have these meetings and these -- additional information so that the community can really evaluate this. Because at the end of the day, there does have to be a line where a neighbor can't influence the next property owner because they don't own it, but maybe in this unique situation, if enough information is gathered and provided, a meaningful conversation about purchase can be started. So we do think that all of those provisions should remain. It's just that when we're looking at the long-range effects, and when we're looking at the lawsuits, the focus seems to be not on that. The focus seems to be on the actual greenway and the buffering space. And so, again, going back to the direction that came from the Board, the Board's very focused on these lawsuits. And unless I'm missing something, and Heidi can correct me, but I don't believe the lawsuits emphasize the administrative process. They're focused on the actual dimensional requirements, so that's why my comments focused that way. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 69 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It seems to me as though we are headed for sending this back to staff. Anybody who disagrees, please let me know. Maybe we can get it completed today, but I doubt it, because I want to see some revised language in a number of these things, and I want staff to have had the benefit of the comments we made and that were made by counsel and members of the public. So that, I believe, is where we want to be headed. And it may turn out that there are three options. Option number one, to just go with a single sentence -- the single-sentence option, which I don't personally favor, partly -- maybe largely because I don't think the Board of County Commissioners is going to go with that. I think they had a -- they had a more sweeping idea of what needed to be done maybe without -- without having homed in on exactly the provisions that they were unhappy with. But -- so one option would be the single-sentence option. A second option would be that staff helps us craft a Planning Commission preferred option where we can agree, at least by a majority vote, if not unanimously, and send that on, and staff would have its own recommendation which may incorporate some of our suggestions like the word "perpetual" and "easement" and a few other things, but they may still want to go with their own independent version, and that's fine. And then a third possibility would be that we and staff can get together and send something to the Board of County Commissioners that we like and staff likes and we all believe is something that meets the request of the Board of County Commissioners. So anybody want to comment on that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Somebody got it before me. Who's 1? Somebody -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Vernon is first. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, I was going to say I guess a nuisance is do we go with the single sentence, or do we also remove the prohibition, or you suggesting we do that? When you say "single sentence," you mean remove the prohibition? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I should have been more clear. We must remove the prohibition if we go with the single sentence; otherwise, you can have a conflict. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So my -- I guess my comments -- I think you -- you've got a pretty good idea. But my comments is, I just feel like this ought to go to legal with staff helping as opposed to staff with legal helping because, again, the only reason we're doing this is because of litigation. And then I guess the last comment I'd make, I'd probably go with No. 2 and maybe make a few more changes simply because I do fear that the County Commissioners will not accept what we propose if we just change one sentence. That -- and that sounds like a crazy way to do it, but I do want to do what they ask us to do, again, through the filter of how do we win the lawsuit and nothing more, which is Mr. Lombardo's point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I agree with your comments. One thing I'll say here, and I can only operate at the outer perimeter, the outskirts of what might be an understanding that has been reached over the years between the County Attorney's Office and the Growth Management Department. But there is a -- I think preceded by some long sessions of perhaps disagreement arriving at a compromise as to whose authority is the Growth Management and whose authority is County Attorney. I learned rather early on, sitting up here, that what I think should be a matter for the attorney, as a result of this compromise that's been reached years ago, may not be the way that the county internal government works. And I'm not trying to change the way the government works by saying "this needs to be primarily the County Attorney or primarily Growth Management." I think we need to just rely on, you know, if we send it back, that they're going to -- they're going to address it in a way that they have -- that's consistent with the understanding that they've reached over the years. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 70 of 85 Any comments from the County Attorney or Growth Management? Am I way off base? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The zoning director has clear authority. CHAIRMAN FRYER: To interpret. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on -- MR. BOSI: There's matters -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- state statutes. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. The county -- the state statutes clearly empowers the zoning director with that authority. The County Attorney, my understanding, is the legal advisor and the advisor to the Board of County Commissioners. But under state statute, that -- that does fall under the zoning director. MR. BOSI: And the interpretation of the Land Development Code and the GMP has been designated to the County Manager or designee, which falls upon me. The County Attorney Office does not work for -- is not part of general-purpose county government staff. They work for the County Attorney, Mr. Klatzkow, who has a specific -- who works for the Board of County Commissioners. We work in hand and good team work, but there is most certainly a line of responsibilities and a chain of command that is different between myself and what Ms. Ashton deals with. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. The only point I was making -- and I'm in agreement what the Vice Chairman -- is when we say we're sending this back, we're not prescribing who is to do what, because there are state statutes, and there are many years of compromise and understandings reached, I know, because I've had conversations with Jeff Klatzkow. And we're not trying to upset any of that. So when we say send it back, we know that you'll handle it in the way that is consistent with the statutes and your long-term agreements of who's responsible for what. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Any action that comes to us usually -- there's certainly a paragraph that says legal sufficiency and the legal comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I offer, I think -- we're probably going to need to take a break here soon, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: We do, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I don't want to get into trying to write legislation on the fly here. I have about six or seven points I want to add. I'm waiting to hear from the public, and then I think we can provide what I think is a comprehensive list of items for staff to look at and come back to us with a -- I would say a rewrite, because I certainly want to -- I concur with many of the points Mr. Lombardo brought up and Tony Pires brought up, and also I think -- I think that we could give them some ammunition, and they can come back to us. We're not going to -- we're not going to solve this today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no. You're exactly right, and I agree completely. But first things first, we need to take a break. It's 2:14. We'll be back at 2:24. We're in recess. (A brief recess was had from 2:14 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. My plan for this afternoon, subject to what Planning Commission wants to do, we're going to go for another two hours to around 4:30, plus or minus, and within that time, I want to have heard from all members of the public, and having talked to staff, who's monitoring this, that's not an insurmountable opportunity or option for us within that time. Then after we've heard from people who want to speak, if we have time remaining, I'd like to turn to Ms. Berkey's comments, which are in those balloons. But if we don't get to those, I'm going to ask the Planning Commission members to be sure that they have read and understand them. And the comments are quite clear. And ask staff, when it takes all of this under submission and does its rewrite, to give appropriate affect to Ms. Berkey's comments. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 71 of 85 Does anybody disagree with that as a way of proceeding? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. That's how we will. So then Mr. Lombardo's finished, and we've got four commissioners, and then we'll go back to the public. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think -- I'm done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, me too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm done. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, we all -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We're done. Okay. So now let's -- let's go to registered speakers, if we may, please. Who do we have? MR. SUMMERS: All righty. Our first speaker is Peter Osinski, and he is ceded extra time by David Bartos. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And, sir, if you'd give us the spelling of your last name, I'd be appreciative. MR. OSINSKI: O-s-i-n-s-k-i. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. OSINSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good afternoon. MR. OSINSKI: My name is Peter Osinski. I am a Board member at Riviera Golf Estates. I'm also the Chairman of the Golf Course Work Group Committee that has been following the developments on this issue for a couple of years now. As an aside, not only have we been to all of the appropriate meetings here, we have also been represented -- personally, myself, Tricia Campbell, and Alan Carpenter went to the two DSAC meetings also and made our understandings clear. But first of all, I'd like to point out that on April 23rd, the Board of County Commissioners discussed the golf course conversion regulations, and those deliberations were alluded to by Mr. Bosi. Our review of that video -- it is on video. It's still on my computer. I've watched it a few times. Our review of that meeting is that they had no problem with the 100-foot greenway. It was alluded to a couple times, and nobody said, "No, it should be less." But they -- as they discussed the item -- and the item was brought up by an agenda item brought up by Commissioner McDaniel, and the item was repeal of the golf course regulations, which started the whole discussion. The discussion, again, considered the greenway to be a given, the 100 foot, and there was no question about that. But they did seem to want the authority to approve lesser dimensions, which is understandable. I'd rather they didn't, but I understand their point of view. And they unanimously rejected the idea of limiting -- on eliminating the golf course conversion regulations and made a motion asking the Planning department to draft modifications that would streamline the process and provide them more defense against Bert Harris claims. All right. So that's -- that's what the Board asked for. We, myself, Tricia Campbell, and Alan Carpenter, shortly thereafter, went to all three -- all five commissioners. We went there after the first DS -- the proposed DSAC changes to the regulations. We went there to tell them about what is being worked on in the DSAC and what is being eliminated from our protections and gauged their receptiveness to them. Most of them didn't know that that was happening. There were a variety of opinions about 5.A.b Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 72 of 85 what was happening, but none of -- them, none of them said, "Oh, this is what I want to see happening." Most of them said, "No, this isn't -- this isn't right." We had a couple that clearly said, "We are going to be against this." So I'm not saying that for you to rely on as the gospel truth or a clear indication of where they are. But we went through the trouble of going to the two DSACs. We went to the trouble of speaking to every commissioner in their offices. And this is what we've come up with. But, of course, after -- after they were asked at the meeting, the Planning department went ahead, and we all know it, they reduced the greenway to an average of 50 feet, they eliminated the 35 percent open-space rule, and they eliminated the two prescribed SOM meetings, which as far as I'm concerned has neutered our ability to be -- to have influence in the process. Now, Mr. Bosi talked about the SOM meetings and the anecdotal understanding that the SOM meetings were ineffective. Well, maybe they were, and maybe there's a reason why. We had our first SOM meeting, and it was in a space that was too small. So the second SOM meeting was scheduled, and we had that second SOM meeting. And, yes, both sides very clearly articulated their positions, and they didn't match very well. One of the reasons was is because the applicant was proposing a 20-foot greenway. How would you respond? All right. But we all stated our case, and that was the first SOM. Now, the second SOM happened three days later. Nothing changed between the first SOM and the second SOM. So all parties simply restated their positions, maybe in a different way, but restated their positions. I was part of that. My impression was the SOMs did get people to express their opinions about what was going on, but there was no extra step that would kind of distill what was learned and maybe turned them into a number of viable alternatives for both parties to discuss. But that's a discussion for another day. Of the proposed changes, obviously the greenway is the most onerous one for us at Riviera Golf Estates, because once you give the Board the power to change the greenway, it becomes a negotiable item; therefore, reducing it from 100 feet to 50 feet means that now the bidding starts at an already unacceptable level. Go from 100 to 50. And the process then incentivizes the applicants to negate it -- negotiate it even lower. And we, the property owners, are the losers. I bought my property in 2019. I was very much aware of the golf course conversion regulations and considered the county I lived in as a very enlightened one because of them. Now I'm looking at this, not so much. It is very disturbing. And you have already made that point and understand our point of view, I'm quite sure of that. So we can't help but wonder why these proposed regulations are so clearly hostile to RGE, to our quality of life, to our security, to our property values. Because they are. It's very clear. So in the process of considering these proposed regulations -- and I am so encouraged to hear your deliberations thus far. But I come up with a few questions myself that you might consider. Is it appropriate to make these significant changes to the Collier County Land Development Code to address only a few specific properties? Number 2, do these proposed regulations properly address, or do they go beyond what the Board intended in its April 11th motion, to streamline the ITC process and provide some Bert Harris protection? Number 3, does the public benefit of these proposed regulations justify the significant reduction of the protections for the property owners that are most affected by them? Number 4, if the stated goal was to improve and make these regulations Bert Harris proof, was it necessary to make such radical changes with some minor modifications to lessen the burden on applicants? And Mr. Bosi alluded to some concerns that we heard in the DSAC meetings, which I think were considerable. To ask an applicant to produce two plans, both of which they have to pay architects and all kinds of other people to do, is onerous. Is it necessary? It's something worth looking into. Look at how to streamline that and make it better without compromising the intent 5.A.b Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 73 of 85 but also giving the BCC the authority to make the changes to the greenway. Really, that was all that was needed. And when you boil it down, Section G -- this is from memory now. Section G, Paragraph -- Paragraph G, Sentence A, says, "The Board has the discretion to make changes to the greenway design." The next -- the next sentence is B, and the B says, "The greenway shall be 100 feet, minimum 75 feet." And the Section B does not give the Board the discretion to change that. That's really the nub of the problem right there and something you can look into. Number 5, are the authors aware that these radical changes still don't protect the county against Bert Harris claims? Because the Bert Harris law states that a claim can be initiated from any action of a government entity which affects real property, including action on an application or permit or adopting or enforcing any ordinance. So how do we defend against that? Well, I don't think we do. I think we do the right thing and defend it. That's public policy. Has anyone considered these proposed changes will give abutting property owners Bert Harris claims of their own? Of course, you do. So we do appreciate you looking into all of these things. We also hope that you view them in the context of whether or not they contribute to the overall public good, these changes, or, more specifically, does revising the LDC to enable golf course property developers to cram more housing into smaller tracts to the undeniable detriment of the surrounding property owners really serve the public good? I guess one of the things I wanted to say before I started this, but I'll say it at the end, is this -- what I've been watching today reminds me of a Chinese proverb that goes, "Do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from a friend's forehead." Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's -- if you don't mind refraining from applause. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a comment on the last statement he made, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Almost any rezoning action could be deemed an infringement on neighboring property. So that's inherently built in the code, and that's inherently part of our deliberation process when we look at all the criteria involved, whether it's compatibility, density, traffic, all the other things. So I mean, that -- I understand your statement, but certainly it's in every rezoning action, not simply the rezoning from golf course to residential. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SUMMERS: Next speaker we have is Tricia Campbell, and she is ceded time by Phyllis Bartos. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Campbell. MS. CAMPBELL: Tricia Campbell, 149 Estelle Drive. I'm president of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association and have been since 2022. Riviera's a senior living community with over 1100 Collier County taxpaying residents. There was a couple of things -- I don't want to just talk about Riviera, but there were a couple of things that I wanted to clarify. First of all, yes, the golf course was designed in 1971, and the homes were starting to be built in '73 to '78, in that area there. The sole purpose, to build around the golf course. And they did put a deed restriction on the property in 1973, and because of the MRTA Act, it was -- for some reason it was taken off the deed, and because of MRTA, we had 30 years. So 19 -- in 2017, there was no developer on the property. What happened was they had the deed restriction till 2020, so when that was taken -- when the deed restriction was in the MRTA, you know, Act, it ended up ending in 2020. We now have a litigation on that to 5.A.b Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 74 of 85 investigate if the property is still under the deed restriction. After they started the development, there was a Bert Harris claim in 20 -- I believe it was 2021 that Attorney Yovanovich put in a Bert Harris claim. That was dismissed by the board of directors in that year. Okay. Some of my notes I ended up crossing off because we already hit that subject. But normally you'd have this room packed with Riviera residents. Because it's off season, a lot of people are not here. But we totally disagree with the drastic regulation changes for the golf course conversion. We find that this is a protection for any homeowners that are existing properties outside of these -- the golf courses that were built. Most of us paid a premium to live on the golf course. Not for the view, but for the open space. After living here 14 years and going through two hurricanes and many rainstorms, I know that existing abutters need the open space to avoid major stormwater damage. Land absorbs the water. Swales divert the water. Striking out many important factors on the golf course conversion will lead to [sic] many residents in RGE and other golf course communities a feeling of uncertainty. We feel that these changes are not needed at all because they're just proposed to assist a landowner and a prospective buyer and not to safeguard the existing property owners. We see that this a process driven by one attorney in opposition to the overwhelming public support for these protective regulations to all communities surrounding golf courses. We think adoption by the county will only lead to more lawsuits, as you had stated a possibility with homeowners doing Bert Harris claims themselves, not helping to avoid lawsuits. Last year Collier County did a survey to assist us in the purchase of the property. This isn't the first time that we have approached the owners to purchase the property. We had one vote, but we lost the vote in the community. We had a private group that put together over a million dollars pledged to them and had offered Mr. Grund at RGE a proposal to buy the course. And this particular one, the assistance with the county, I wanted to make it clear that we never were against the proposal, but we have a lot of senior citizens on fixed income. With a price tag of 17- to $2200 a year, a lot of our taxpayer -- I mean, excuse me, our seniors were unable to pay that. In closing, I feel in my heart that you, as the county -- the Collier County Planning Commission, will make the right decision for the good of Collier County and all the taxpaying residents by rejecting these proposed changes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Campbell. Next speaker, please. Oh, before we go to the next speaker, give me a tally of how many more there are. MR. SUMMERS: We have one more in person and one online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. So we've got plenty of time. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. SUMMERS: All right. Our next speaker is David Hurst. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sir, if you don't mind spelling your last name, I'd appreciate it. MR. HURST: H-u-r-s-t. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. HURST: Thank you for your time today, gentlemen. This is my umpteenth time in front of the Collier board. But being brought up today, a lot of my co-residents had covered a lot of ground which I now understand. As a contractor, understanding properties and what you have to look at, the major cost that Collier County's not observing is this: If the property gets developed, to bring the property up to code, the rainwater is a huge discussion. The potential purchaser of the property, developer, is going to have to spend several million dollars to bring the water off the property, which then becomes Collier County's problem. And in my discussions briefly with Mr. Bosi, are you aware 5.A.b Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 75 of 85 that to remove the water from the property is going to cost, best guesstimate, 25- to $50 million to redo the city's waterworks? That's all I wanted to say about it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. SUMMERS: All right. We're going to move to our online group. First off we have Alan Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter, you have permission to unmute yourself whenever you're ready. MR. CARPENTER: Thank you very much. Chairman Fryer and other commission members, I am Alan Carpenter of 205 Estelle Court. I'm the secretary of the Board of Directors for Riviera HOA. You have received detailed comments from our association counsel, Attorney Berkey, who, unfortunately, had an overlapping hearing today, but I believe you can read those comments and understand them. They're fairly straightforward. But I'm not here to discuss specifically the proposed changes to process, whether two NIMs and two SOMs and so forth. The point, I think, is that input from people impacted in the community around golf courses that might be rezoned is important. But more importantly, and what I want to speak to, are the standards for which are applied in those rezonings, and I think that's where the redlines really concern us. The redlines are significant. Our three main areas of concern are greenway and open space. As already discussed, the elimination or the restriction of the greenway to a point where there are minimal buffers devalues property, and as already noted by many, that leads to litigation prospects in the future. The Growth Management department, back in 2017 when the original code was put in place, published two papers which -- research papers, white papers. One titled "Findings on Golf Course Conversions and Recommended LDC amendments." Second was "Follow-up to the LDC amendment 5.05.15 conversion of golf courses." This research identified the best practices across the state when others were grappling with the same issue of golf course conversions. Among other things, this research determined that the LDC amendment must include a substantial buffer or greenway along the perimeter of the golf course. Typically 50 to 200 feet minimums were identified in regulations of other communities and should also include a sizable open space, much like our current residential and PUD zones require. And these have been neutered or eliminated in the redlines that have been included in this proposed revision. The staff analysis during that time appraised values of properties adjacent to golf course in Collier County at a 31 percent amenity premium in taxable value over comparable properties within -- that did not have the open space and greenway buffers. This is the county's own research. So planning staff went before the Board of County Commissioners in 2017 and addressed these concerns. Hundreds of people showed up. The hall was filled to overflowing. People were upstairs. The community was obviously in favor of these changes, save for one attorney who voted in -- who voiced opinion in opposition. This was largely a community agreement that these were good regulations. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of adoption and commented it represented a good balance between homeowners' interests and those of the landowners of golf courses. So as my colleagues on the board, Tricia Campbell and Peter Osinski, have said, this is not just a matter of minor wordsmithing. A single line change may be sufficient, maybe two, to address the Board of County Commissioners' concerns. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our major concerns can be summarized in three points: Greenway and open space and how it impacts property values; safety, stormwater systems, and traffic controls. As already noted, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 76 of 85 these communities are abutting golf courses that act as stormwater systems and, indeed, have very limited traffic controls and roadways into and out of the communities; and compatibility. Our community is an age-restricted community, and the last thing that makes sense is to put in affordable family housing in the midst of an elder community. So I ask that the Board here consider seriously the option of making de minimis changes to what is already a well-vetted and well-established code. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. SUMMERS: All right. Next up we have Frank Wood. Mr. Wood, if you could unmute yourself. MR. WOOD: Good afternoon. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. MR. WOOD: My name is Frank Wood, and I live at 994 Charlemagne Boulevard in Riviera Golf Estates. Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I came to Collier County in 2016 and taught high school physics. My community is full of retired teachers, postal workers, plumbers, electricians, and other folks that have worked hard. Home purchases since 2017 have relied on this 2017 golf course conversion blueprint. And in 2020, our community had to replace our pool. We were required to upgrade our 1970s site to the 2022 Collier County standards. Our $550,000 pool became a $950,000 project. We obeyed the rules. We would appreciate it if you would not water down any of these protections we received in 2017. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Wood. Any further registered speakers? MR. SUMMERS: That is all for today, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any people in the room -- any persons in the room who wish to be heard although they haven't registered, please raise your hand, and we'll recognize you. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't see any hands raised. So with that, we will close the public speaking comment -- public comment portion of this hearing. And we do have ample time at this point to go over Ms. Berkey's comments, which is what I would like to do at this point, without objection from the Planning Commission, and hear from staff and also hear from the planning commissioners what they -- what they feel about these. And if you have your agenda packet in front of you, they begin on Page 822 of 850. And they are -- they take the form of, like, balloon comments in the margins of the summary that went to the DSAC. And before I go into that, I want to be sure that everybody understands and knows what DSAC is and, for that matter, what it's not. DSAC is an officially sanctioned advisory committee to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. It is not, however, quasi-judicial. And it is designed and populated by members of the various subgroups of the development industry such as developers themselves, lawyers who represent developers, and consultants who also represent developers. So as you can see, their point of view is going to be aimed at the development community and advocating for the interests of the development committee [sic]. It's not a bad thing at all, and it's something that, as I say, was officially established by the Board of County Commissioners. But they're not like us. They're not quasi-judicial, and they're not disinterested. So having said that -- and I just want to be sure that everyone keeps that in mind when we hear references to DSAC. So with that -- go ahead, sir. Yes, please. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 77 of 85 COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a question on -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner, yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Maybe I missed it, but did DSAC comment on this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, but DSAC has been referred to multiple times. And when we turn to Page 822, we're going to be working off of the DSAC advisory board recommendations. And so that's why I thought it would be a good idea to preface. You want to say anything? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I just -- I guess they've had input into this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, my goodness, yes. Yeah. And I asked Mr. Bosi about this. I wanted to be sure that this did not originate with DSAC, and it did not. And I'm not aware of the extent to which their input found its way into staff's recommendations, but I think that's a legitimate question to ask as we go through this. And, again, I'm not -- I do not mean to be critical of DSAC. I just think we have to recognize what it is. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The DSAC reviews all LDC amendments. They can even approach staff to initiate. They're the practitioners who implement, to put it bluntly. DSAC are the -- many of them are either contractors, engineers, or other interested parties, but they are the -- sort of the practitioners who actually have to live with the code. So it's been a policy for, Mike, what, 25 years at least that the DSAC is sort of the first vetting committee, the committee to first vet all the changes to the LDC. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the process was Mike's staff developed some changes -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- gave them to DSAC, we got some comments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe that's right, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, they -- Mike would -- staff would then go back, tweak it one way or another, then it comes to us. We very seldom really see the comments that are specific to the DSAC, but they just typically are either incorporated or not incorporated. I mean, it's -- MR. BOSI: They're either incorporated, or sometimes they're within the narrative. They may be highlighted in terms of -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I used to tell them sometimes "noted." MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Got it. MR. BOSI: This is a unique situation is we're going back to DSAC on August 7th, because DSAC has not read -- or has not reviewed the version that the Planning Commission reviewed. The staff had a prior version of the modifications to the golf course conversion that wasn't as drastic of a change from discussion internally to meet with the Board of County Commissioners' direction that we felt to provide the most Bert Harris defensible. We went with a much more abbreviated version. So the comments that DSAC made were not upon this version. It was a different version. So they really have no bearing upon what is being proposed to you today. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I'm still -- it's late in the day. I haven't heard any reason why we should be changing anything, personally, other than somebody upstairs said you should change it. I haven't heard anybody jump up and say, "No, no, no, you've got to change it for this reason." Everybody has said, "Why change it?" So my question is, why change it? Why not go with a minimalistic approach of putting one sentence, however the lawyers think it should be, to protect us? I just haven't heard anybody champion a reason to change anything. And for us to spend hours wordsmithing something that may be accepted when we don't even know what they were looking for to begin with, I think, is a waste of our time, personally. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a -- I mean, that's a potentially valid way of looking at it. I 5.A.b Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 78 of 85 don't necessarily disagree, but the Board of County Commissioners has requested that this be done. Now, what the "this" is is open to some discussion. I'm not sure we're all in total agreement, and it sounds like there was some ambiguity at the meeting, what was it, April 7th. Whenever the Board of County -- MR. BOSI: April 23rd. CHAIRMAN FRYER: April 23rd. But I mean, an edict came down from the BCC for staff to do this, and staff did it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if we, as a group, think it's not broke and we want to go with -- why don't we just say what we believe? We're an advisory group. To cater to something we're not sure we want but we don't agree with I don't think is worth our time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The only thing that I will say -- and then Mr. Bosi should comment -- as a -- and I'm not a politician. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You play one on TV. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Neither do I play one on TV. I play a Planning Commission chairman on TV. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Stayed at a Holiday Inn. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we all want to demonstrate to the Board of County Commissioners that we have carefully followed what we thought they asked us to do. And we might stand a better chance of influencing the outcome of this if we do not take the two-sentence approach even though my heart and my brain is probably more with the two-sentence approach. As a practical matter, I think we might have a greater impact on this process if we take what staff has done and try to adapt it -- or adapt it to our concerns even though it's going to take some time. I think we've got -- we've got time. And I don't think there's a lot of pressure to get this done immediately. And I think we stand a better chance of influencing the outcome. Mr. Bosi, how do you feel about that? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We might have a better chance of influencing the outcome if we tell them we don't think you need to do anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's also possible. Mr. Bosi, do you want to speak? And then Commissioner Vernon. MR. BOSI: No, I wouldn't hazard to try to guess the Board's ultimate decision upon this. I mean, there's too many factors within it. At the discretion, whatever the Board -- however the Planning Commission would like to move forward, you know, I'm willing to walk down that path. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, the only new information I have at the first speaker -- that was a good presentation. And, you know, you may be able to comment on this. But what he said he heard at that meeting with the County Commissioners is streamline and make it more Bert Harris proof. So unless the greenway or some of these other changes make it more Bert Harris proof -- maybe they do, but if they don't, all we've been -- all we've been -- all we need to do to sort of compromise between the Chairman and Commissioner Shea, we change the one sentence, which may include changing the prohibition language -- it may be a little bit more than one sentence, and then we drop one of the SOMs, NIMs, whatever you want to call them, which streamlines it, and that way we've made the two changes. We've left the body of it pretty much exactly the same, and we're done. I'm not saying we should stop now. I mean, I know we've got more -- you've got more to present and more to think about and discuss. But that would sort of achieve the goal -- big-picture goal of Commissioner Shea and also, I think, help on my thought process, which is consistent with the Chairperson's process, that we've been asked to do something, and unless we vehemently object, we can do it. And you've suggested maybe cut out -- we've got three meetings; cut it down to two. You've still got more than normal, but you've got less. It's more streamlined, and we're done. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 79 of 85 And also he said that they met with the commissioners and, you know, I'm sure they've got a lot on their agenda, and they don't study everything perfectly. They may have said that a little flippantly and a little quickly, and maybe they do have a change of heart. So I don't want to go any further than -- I don't want to -- I don't want to violate the concept Commissioner Shea's trying to accomplish, which is kind of keep it much the same but make enough changes that they'll be comfortable that we've done what they asked us to do, and we don't disagree with those changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other planning commissioners want to weigh in on this? I don't think there's much space between me and Commissioner Shea, but Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't see any need to go through the comments that were sent in -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- because Mike has those. I can summarize it. Basically say, keep the intent of the LDC. The Board gave you direction. You have to comply with the Board. The Board looks to us to help you do that process. As was said, they really don't study this as much -- as intently as we do. I would make seven recommendations. The greenway, drop the average. As was stated, you have to address whether there's a minimum. You need to correct that. Ensure that the intent of the greenway issue is preserved, so that has got to be done. Remove the "sole discretion" language. We've discussed that. Clean the use of "residential use" -- and slash "properties" the clear up this issue with The Links property. What was that -- cannot use -- the developer cannot use -- count the golf course as open space to meet their requirements. I don't -- that's mutually exclusive. I don't know -- I don't think we ever intended that a developer can use open space or use the golf course for open space. I'm not sure -- there was a comment about that, but you need to look at that. You absolutely have to meet all state and federal requirements. That solves the issue with stormwater runoff. There was a comment made about stormwater and the county. All that is dealt with in the Environmental Resource Permit process, the ERP process. We can put language in there, but it's superfluous, because to go through the ERP process is a requirement of the state, federal -- and federal permitting process. Of course, they're going to have to go through the federal permitting process if there's jurisdictional wetlands or if there's identified listed species. You have to address the soil contamination issue; that's in state statute as well. And eliminate the terminology if you want the SOM, the stakeholder outreach meeting, and the notice to convert. Those names came up for whatever reason, I can't recall, but somehow they evolved and morphed. If it's just going to be a NIM -- but there has to be some kind of a pre-meeting to tell the folks what's going to happen, and then the NIM process. As we often do, as you well know, and the folks from the two communities, oftentimes the NIM is exactly what it is. It's the information meeting. The applicant comes in here, and then we take a ball-peen hammer and try and drive, you know, a round peg into a square hole, or vice versa as they come to us and present the issues. But they tend to use the Planning Commission as sort of the sounding board. If you want to do that elsewhere prior to coming here, I don't care. If the Board is looking to streamline, then maybe eliminate the SOM and the notice to convert and somehow create the NIM process, whether that's two meetings or whatever. But those are sort of my recommendations. But I agree with the intent. The intent was there. I don't want to throw the whole thing out. I think the intent was to protect the property owners and to give the developer the opportunity to come in and ask for a rezoning. If it -- if you want to cull this down somehow, okay, but we still cannot throw out the intent, which was to protect both the developer to give them the opportunity if they want to submit for a rezoning action and to the homeowners who reside around the golf course. Enough said. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 80 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you -- you had seven points. Did you cover them all? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anybody else want to -- oh, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I would -- subject to what the other commissioners' thoughts are, I would create a universe of potential changes which would be Joe's seven changes, and if there's others in addition to that that anybody has, that's your universe of changes. And I would propose that each of those changes, you, with legal, determine does this streamline the process. I'm assuming what this gentleman said is actually what the commissioners said: Streamline it, Bert Harris proof. So you run each of those seven changes through a filter. Does it streamline it? Does it materially protect us more from a Bert Harris claim? If it does, do it. If it doesn't, I'd suggest we don't make that change. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. My question for the Planning Commission and partly for staff is this: If something like staff's work product is going to be going to the Board, I want an opportunity to comment on it primarily from the standpoint of what Mr. Lombardo said and what Ms. Berkey has said. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I would agree. I think it needs to come back here before it goes to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I want to make that clear. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I was thinking the same thing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't want this to go to the Board without coming back here. MR. BOSI: I would have to agree because there's not a lot of specificity in what you guys -- what you guys have provided me is -- there's a lot of ambiguity. There's -- you want to streamline. We'll talk about the intent-to-convert process. The number of procedural steps that the applicant's required to do within -- for the SOMs, the alternative development statements, the conceptual development plans, the visual survey preferences, all these other options that have to require [sic]. There's some opportunities for streamlining, but if you want to retain it, I mean, there's -- there's -- your first suggestion was, eliminate the -- no deviations from 5.05, give the Board the discretion for deviations but remove the "at the sole discretion" and eliminate the two SOMs to one SOM. CHAIRMAN FRYER: NIM. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here's -- here's my -- what I'm trying -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought you were calling it a NIM. I don't care what they call it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I'd like it called -- well, I don't care either, but I like the idea of a NIM because I want a transcript. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And what I'm trying to say -- maybe you're clear on it, but just so -- to me, you're going to get a list from us of conceptual changes. You're not going to go beyond those conceptual changes. At most, you're going to make conceptual changes, but you're not even going to make all of those conceptual changes because each one you're going to go, talk to the lawyers, say, "Does this materially reduce our chance of a Bert Harris claim?" If so, make the changes. "Does this streamline the process?" If so, make the change. If it does neither, don't even make those changes. And then when you come back before us, we'll have a redline thing, and you can explain the changes you didn't make, and let's say three of them you don't think streamlines it or reduces the chance of Bert Harris, so you make four changes that either streamline or reduce the chance of Bert Harris, and then we can vote on it and Paul can vote -- or whoever can vote, say, "I don't even 5.A.b Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 81 of 85 want to make those changes. I just want to make two of those changes." So I just wanted you to understand we're not asking you to go out into the ether and look at every line and see if it streamlines or Bert Harrises it better; rather, here's the -- "Here's the things. Make zero to seven of these changes based on the two filters." That's what I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask a question about reducing the Bert Harris exposure. Are we -- are we discounting the potential Bert Harris exposure from homeowners on the grounds that they can't afford counsel? Because I don't think that's fair. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree with you totally. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so if we're reducing Bert Harris exposure, we should -- we should keep in mind that that exposure could come from both sides. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I agree with you, but the fact is, and what's driving this, is two to three claims by applicants, not homeowners. And this is primarily designed to protect homeowners. So that, I think -- me and, I think, Commissioner Schmitt and certainly Commissioner Shea, we want to make as few changes as possible. CHAIRMAN FRYER: To the current? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right, which continues to protect the homeowner as much as possible, so I think we're being cognizant of that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So what you -- three of you are saying -- and if it's the case, I agree -- that we should go back to the nine pages, or however many it was that have been redlined out, and preserve as much of that as we can consistent with the guidelines that we've talked about. And I have -- I have asked that we be mindful of Bert Harris claims from both sides of the equation. Just because a party can't afford to vindicate their rights doesn't mean that their rights shouldn't be protected by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I put it -- also include the input from the two attorneys that have provided -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: By all means, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because they're very applicable. MR. BOSI: As long as these are within the confines of the direction you're giving me, correct, because -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. MR. BOSI: -- there could be suggestions that they have that don't fall within those areas. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Some of them. I didn't go -- I mean, I read them all. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You're right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The comments are in the form of "please don't take this out" -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because they're comments directed to redlined material. So, I mean, I'm in basic agreement with almost all, if not all, of those comments. It doesn't mean I wouldn't listen carefully to an argument about why something doesn't [sic] need to be taken out. But I want to have that discussion before -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- before we don't honor Ms. Berkey's comments. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think Ms. Berkey and Mr. Lombardo agree with Commissioner Shea, and I think you are just a little nuanced from Commissioner Shea. You agree -- maybe a few more changes, a little bit like Joe and I, and I think Joe and I want to make minimal changes. So I think that nobody here wants to -- we all want to start with the document we had, give him a list of things to consider, create a couple of filters, and then we can vote to make -- not even 5.A.b Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 82 of 85 agree to what his changes are if we want -- if you guys think about it and decide you want to just make it almost identical as it currently is. MR. BOSI: And that's what we're -- we're going to be working off the redline. We're not working off of staff proposed minimum. This will be an evaluation of the existing 5.05.15 as provided for within the LDC currently based upon the seven areas that you're providing instructions to make modifications to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I like that. That's good. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, sir. Possibly a suggestion for staff. Since we're going back to the redline 5.05, 5.15 [sic], is it appropriate to take the two filters that were just discussed and review those with each of the items in the redline proposal again to make sure this fluff that's not needed at all -- no, this is a valid point because it's what we worked so hard to do in 2017, obviously years before me, put it through those two filters, and just, more or less, review that entire package making sure you're going after either, A, does it minimize the possible [sic] of a Bert Harris and, B, does it -- I just lost my -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Streamline. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- streamline, recognizing that the Board, when they said streamline, I'm assuming there weren't really any qualifications around that. Streamline, that could mean take out one sentence. That could mean, as you folks did, boil it down to a page and a half. But is it appropriate to look at all of that redlined nine-page document and apply those filters to it again? I open this up for discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think what I am hearing -- first of all, I think we're about 95 percent in agreement up here, and to the extent that we differ at all, it's in nuances. But I think what I'm hearing is we want staff to look back at what is currently in effect, we'll call it redline or nine pages, whatever, but what is currently in effect for conversions and evaluate each suggested change or deletion against the goals of streamlining and Bert Harris claims from either the homeowner or the developer. So I think if that -- if that is the case, then you'd come back with something that would be probably pretty close to nine pages -- you know, maybe seven pages -- but would look much more like what we have now than what staff is proposing. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That goes back to what Mike said at the beginning. He said, "We've kind of taken a hatchet to it instead of a scalpel," and we're suggesting the scalpel and giving you some guidance on what -- the seven things to look at and the filters to use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anybody disagree with what I said? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comment. Mike, why did we require two distinct proposals from a developer? I -- was that something that came up during the public meeting process so there would be either/or? I mean, it's the only process in the county where we actually -- they're actually required to present two different designs, and I sort of vaguely remember the discussion. But if you wanted to streamline, I don't see a need for two distinct. I mean, tell me what you want to do, and let's deal with that. MR. BOSI: Joe -- I'm sorry -- Commissioner Schmitt. I would say -- Mike Bosi, Zoning director. I would say that the reason why was they wanted to force options, and those options could be utilized if they're presented at the stakeholder outreach meetings to promote, "Okay, which of these options, what do you like about each one of them?" to be able to identify things that maybe there's some commonalities or suggestions. So that's the only reason why I can think. But that -- I think that was maybe the motivation for why those were -- were they specifically culled out for two -- two options. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 83 of 85 I think one provision -- and I could talk about the intent-to-convert process and the things that are required. One of the things that I think has absolutely no real value -- and as I'm thinking about some of your guidance -- and it's related to the intent-to-convert process -- but for -- we require that the applicant show why it's fiscally unfeasible for them to continue on as a golf course. I don't know what value we get from that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No value in that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. MR. BOSI: So it's things like that is what you're saying -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- eliminate. MR. BOSI: -- would be under the needs to be streamlined, and is there a cost-benefit analysis that justifies the cost for the benefit that could be received from it? Is that the -- kind of the general approach that you would like us to take? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, answer, if nobody -- it won't stay as a golf course, it would be, nobody wants to buy it, nobody wants to run it, I mean, period, end of story. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And that's the type of suggestion I had of, as we're doing this, go ahead and knock off each of those points in the redline, because that was never mentioned but it's still in the redline, so maybe that comes out. That's a review of it and makes it more streamlined. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know at some of those -- at some time all those things were discussed as part of the requirement, but some of those onerous requirements could be eliminated, like the two designs. I just -- I just want to know, "What is your intent?" The public should know what the intent is. But the clear -- clear and concise to address the open space, groundwater, if you want to call it, you know, stormwater retention, all those kinds of things, it's going to -- they've got to go through it anyway, through the ERP process. But you've got to make sure that the residents are aware. And, oh -- and for the residents, you need to understand, they cannot trespass their water onto your property. That is clearly a trespass. MR. BOSI: Just to provide a clarification. We keep saying "open space." Remember, any residential community that's going to be approved through a rezone process through this, the county's going to have to have a 60 percent open space. That's a requirement of our zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: The intent-to-convert process doesn't change that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. BOSI: It is not proposed to change that. So I'm going to -- this statement of somehow that we are altering the open-space requirements of the ultimate development that would be proposed, that's not true. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree with the Vice Chairman about not requiring two alternative options, because I think that's unrealistic. And, you know, you could supply two options by taking the one you really want and then coming up with one that nobody could live with, and so you -- let's just find out what they want, and that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Find out what they want. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And go with that. MR. BOSI: That was the same comment that a member of DSAC made. He said, I would -- "What I want and then what I really don't want, no one's going to want, so obviously, this is what we want." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. So that's just a way -- and that falls under the heading of streamlining, because that doesn't yield us any important value. So is it -- Mr. Bosi, is it -- may I assume -- may we assume that you have sufficient guidance what we would like you to do between now and when we come back? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 84 of 85 MR. BOSI: I believe I have sufficient guidance, and the catch safe is we're coming back. We're going to come back, and if we didn't get it right, we'll go back and do it again. I mean, I don't want to have to do that, but I think I have enough guidance from you to be able to be a little more precise in the things that we suggest for elimination and the things that we have heard from the Planning Commission that they view that should remain. So we'll go back. And I can't tell you if it's going to be in the September meeting, but we will -- we'll make sure it's going to be a quick turnaround, and we'll get back to you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Rather than waiting, though, can we allow you to be their sounding board just to help them so they don't come back and we make this a longer process and we -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm willing to do that if you want. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think you have a good understanding of where we all are. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If that's what the Planning Commission wants to do, I'd be happy to do it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think that's a great idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, then we'll work together. I think I understand what the Planning Commission is looking for. And my hope is that we don't -- that at the conclusion of this process, we don't have the staff version and the Planning Commission version, two competing -- you know, the war of the versions going to the Board of County Commissioners. I think we're all much better served if we can -- if we can find a way to come together with staff and speak with one voice. If we can't, we can't. But I hope we can. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Using the Vernon filter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else want to be heard on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then I think Mr. Bosi has guidance, and I'm more than happy to participate in whatever way staff, you think, I could be useful in helping hit the points that the Planning Commission has made. MR. BOSI: And what we will do is we're going to make our first run at -- based upon the criterias and the areas of concern and this approach, and once we get a draft, we'll get it to you and get some feedback from you, and then we'll reiterate it again, get it back, and then hopefully at that period of time, we could be in agreement that we can bring it back to the full. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. So we want to continue this, but I guess we're going to continue it indefinitely? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That means re-notification? MR. BOSI: Yeah, there's no notification requirement. It's only an advertisement requirement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So without objection, the matter will be continued indefinitely, and we'll be working -- I'll be working together with staff, and we'll be coming back to the Planning Commission for comment. And that concludes our hearing of that matter for today, it being continued indefinitely. And so it takes us to old business, if there is any? I don't believe there is. Is there any new business to come before the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I was going to say one thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If you're going to take a while on this, it wouldn't hurt, before you come back before us, maybe do a double-check on the status of those two Bert Harris claims or three Bert -- just to see if there's any development on the law or rulings -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good point. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 1, 2024 Page 85 of 85 COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- which may impact something you do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good point. We'll do that. All right. There's no new business at this point. Any public comment on a matter -- any matter that is not on our agenda for today, now would be the time to be heard. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I see no one approaching the microphone. Therefore, without objection, we're adjourned. I'm sorry. I was thinking about this anyway, but if we collaborate before the meeting, send it out to the full Planning Commission -- MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because I may not get it entirely right. I'll try. Okay. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:25 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. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 08-01-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 1 of 21 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 15, 2024 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. (attending remotely) Paul Shea Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office ABSENT: Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative 5.A.c Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 2 of 21 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to all of you. This is the August 15, 2024, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. We're glad to have you here. Uh-oh. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Reverberation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're getting some feedback. Now we're not. Okay. Good. All right. So where we are is it's time to 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: Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Vernon is not here. Commissioner Klucik, are you on Zoom? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I am. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's quickly have a motion to allow him to participate. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to allow Commissioner Klucik to participate by phone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome to the meeting, Commissioner Klucik. Continue, please, Secretary. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart is not here. We have a quorum, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, Secretary. Addenda to the agenda. Let's see. Before I call on Mr. Bellows, we've got two companions that were scheduled for today. They're requesting to be continued to September 20. They are PL20220005195, the Hope Home Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and PL20220005096, the Hope Home II community facilities PUDZ. So I would like to ask staff to briefly explain to us why the continuance -- who requested it and why it was -- why it's being requested to be continued. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 3 of 21 MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Yes, Chair. We received a notification from the applicant that they had forgotten to coordinate with the sign company, and the sign was not put up within the proper time period prior to the Planning Commission meeting. And so they had to request a continuance to the following meeting on September 20th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The only concern I have about that is that we are really already jammed up on September 20. And I know that we might possibly get to it -- if we put it first, we'll certainly get to it -- but then the other matters, something may have to be carried forward. But in any event, that's what's before us now for action. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve as requested or presented by staff to postpone till the 20th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: To the date-certain, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To the date-certain. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. They are continued to that date-certain. Planning Commission absences, our next meeting is not until -- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, we do have a change. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. I forgot to call on you. Go ahead, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: We would like to add an item under 9A11 under new business, a discussion on workshops. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, of course, yeah. And that has to do with an interest that has been expressed, I believe, by Commissioner Sparrazza, something that we have done in the past. And the idea is set forth on a piece of paper that was circulated to us. We'll take it up on new business. And I'll just ask -- without objection, we'll put that on the agenda as new business. There being no objection, it's added as new business. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Bellows. Then we go to Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting isn't until September 20. We've got, I think, about five and a half weeks to prepare for what will be a long meeting, so we may need it. Now, please note that this meeting is going to be on a Friday because Thursday, the 19th, which would ordinarily be our meeting date, has been preempted by the Board of County Commissioners. I think they're having their second of two budget workshops; is that correct Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it's Friday, the 20th. And my question, does anyone know if he or she cannot be attending that Planning Commission meeting? (No response.) 5.A.c Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 4 of 21 CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, it would appear we would have a quorum. That's good. Then the meeting after that will take place on October 3rd, 2024. Anyone know if he or she cannot be in attendance at this meeting? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: At this time, I will not be able to attend. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you for giving us the heads-up. Anyone else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll check the calendar here a minute. Is it the twenty -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: The 3rd of October. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. All right. Looks like -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I believe that two of us, our terms are expiring, although I'm not sure -- you know, I don't think I'll be here after October 1st. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, sir. Thank you for -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think, that might be the case as well -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Chris, right? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner, and also -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So having a quorum -- having a quorum might be a little bit more difficult. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Yeah. Understood. Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Commissioner Klucik. Approval of minutes, we have one set for action today, and those are our minutes of July 18, 2024. Any corrections, additions, substitutions? If not, any discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of approving that set of minutes, please say aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. BCC report/recaps, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. At the last Board of County Commissioners meeting last Tuesday, there were no zoning land-use items presented. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***Public hearings. We will go to advertised hearings. The first today to be heard are 5.A.c Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 5 of 21 companions, and they are PL20230018187, the Immokalee Road Estates Commercial Subdistrict Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and PL2020017803, the BCHD 1 CPUD, Commercial PUDA. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. 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? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures starting with Secretary Shea, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public -- matters of public record, a meeting with staff, and a communication of sorts with the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials and a conversation with Noel Davies. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials and a conversation with Mr. Davis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I said -- oh, and Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Nothing. Nothing except staff materials and a meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I said "communication of sorts" because we communicated in attempting to find a time when we could communicate but did not, alas, actually communicate on substantive matters. All right. Having cleared those hurdles, we'll begin with the applicant's presentation. The Chair recognizes Mr. Davies. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Planning Commissioners. For the record, Noel Davies with the law firm of Davies Duke on behalf of the applicant, BCHD Partners 1, LLC, which is an affiliate of Barron Collier Companies. Chris Scott with Peninsula Engineering is also here this morning, as well as Norman Trebilcock, our transportation engineer. I'm going to turn it over to Chris shortly. Before I do that, I'd like to provide a brief history. Here is the subject property. We are on the west side of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Orange Tree Boulevard. And this is our third time before you on this specific site. On the first go-round back in 2021, we were approved for 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, C-1 through C-3 uses, plus a handful of others, including self-storage. Round 2, which was last year, we were approved for 130,000 square feet of self-storage only plus 100,000 square feet of commercial uses. That was a less intense group of uses. So we reduced the trip cap in accordance with that corresponding decrease in intensity. Today is Round 3. The market for self-storage may be softening a bit. It's hard to tell at this point, so we're seeking 130,000 square feet of commercial uses instead of the 100,000 we currently have and also to add indoor golf cart sales as a use, but we would like to keep the option for 130,000 square feet of self-storage based on ever-evolving market conditions; however, and importantly, we are not seeking to increase the trip cap. So that reduced trip cap from Round 2 will remain, but we would have the flexibility to do either commercial only, for example, at 130,000 square feet, i.e. no self-storage at all, or some combination of commercial and self-storage. Under all circumstances, we are still maxed out at that lower trip cap from our last approval, and that ensures -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that number's 475, correct? MR. DAVIES: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Four seven-five two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the trip cap not moving will ensure that even though on paper we will have an 5.A.c Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 6 of 21 additional 30,000 square feet of commercial, this is definitionally not an increase in intensity. And the gatekeeper, of course, for that is your county staff, should this be approved. Our next step would be going through the SDP process. At SDP application, we're required to submit updated Transportation Impact Statements, including detailed trip generation analysis for each specific use, and the aggregate of our trips for this site has to remain under that reduced trip gap from our last approval. And with that, I'm going to invite Mr. Scott up to give the remainder of our presentation. Thank you very much, Planning Commissioners. I'm happy to answer questions now or at the end of Mr. Scott's remarks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just for the record, I did make a site visit, under disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Before you step down, Mr. Davies -- MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- I would like you to, if you wouldn't mind -- I think I know the answer to this question, but I want to make a record. The rectangle to the west, the narrow rectangle, it leads up to 4th Street Northeast. Would you please bring us up to date on that? And I'm particularly interested in the ingress and egress, of course. MR. DAVIES: Do you want to address that? Mr. Scott will address your remarks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fine, too. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, sir. MR. SCOTT: For the record, Chris Scott, planning manager with Peninsula Engineering. Mr. Chairman, I believe you're referring to this rectangle piece? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Nothing has changed with that. That piece was left as open space on the master plan. As you can see here, there was an -- the only interconnection that could take place there would be for the adjacent property owner to the north. I believe that property has actually been transferred to their ownership. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe it has, too. And that's the record I wanted to make, that there -- that there may -- if you don't mind, I'm going to ask Mr. Bosi to clarify exactly what the status of that parcel is with respect to the ingress and egress. Because when we heard this last, in 2023, we insisted that there be no ingress and egress for the commercial activities and that was -- that was part of the deal. So I want to be sure that that remains part of the deal. MR. BOSI: That is staff's understanding of the PUD and how it reads that, for commercial purposes, that it's not provided for an ingress point. MR. SCOTT: Just to summarize. Yeah, there is no commercial ingress/egress onto 4th through the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We had had a number of homeowners last time around who were concerned about that, and I just wanted to be sure that there was to be no change, and you're reassuring us that there is not. MR. SCOTT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What does that arrow mean, connecting the two lots -- MR. SCOTT: That is if the -- there is a provision within the PUD that if the adjacent owner were to purchase it, they would be allowed to put a driveway access to access their combined properties. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we believe that's happened. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. SCOTT: And that property has transferred. And I don't know -- the Femels (phonetic) are their names. I do not know if they have built a driveway through it or are accessing 5.A.c Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 7 of 21 it, but they don't have ownership of that property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I looked at the paperwork from -- was it 2021 or 2023 when that was established? MR. BOSI: 2021. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 2021. And, indeed, this is all -- this was provided for in advance. In other words, the residential ingress and egress under these circumstances was allowed back then, and there's been no change to that. Sorry to interrupt, sir. Go ahead. MR. SCOTT: Not a problem. So this is the Master Concept Plan. There are no changes proposed to the plan. This amendment, as mentioned, is strictly to allow the development to better realize or react to different market conditions. So initially, as Noel gave a good summary of the approvals that were there, it was 200,000 square feet of any of the approved uses. When the amendment in 2023 came forward, there was an addition of some acreage, and the uses were somewhat segregated so that the commercial floor area and indoor self-storage area were reviewed separately in the corresponding reduction in trip cap. By breaking those out, we somewhat painted ourselves in a corner thinking that self-storage was going to be there, because at the time there was an approved Site Development Plan for a self-storage use, and that is somewhat teetering as to whether it would be developed. So the development team was looking at if we are not doing self-storage, are we going to have enough commercial square footage for this large parcel, and this amendment is coming in to allow for an additional 30,000 square feet of commercial. It does not change the location of commercial development or where it would take place or the access points onto the public streets. It does not change any of the development standards, and most importantly, I think, is it does not increase the approved trip cap. This is illustrative of anticipated development. So there is an existing McDonald's that is already open. That's the first commercial enterprise that is opened right on the south side of Orange Tree, or at the intersection of Orange Tree and Immokalee. Two properties have sold. So Tract A was conveyed to NCH medical. They have an agreement to allow for up to 25,000 square feet of medical office. Tract C is currently owned by Healthcare Network for more medical clinic space, anticipated to be around 20,000 square feet. And then the Winchester shopping center to the north, it's Tracts E and F, that has been approved. That's a shopping center with a total of 40,000 square feet. Disregard the imagery. If you see ghost images down there, that doesn't reflect the approved site plan. But it is 40,000 square feet anchored by an Ace Hardware. It will have space for other restaurants and service uses and office. And that really left Tract B where there was an SDP approved for 130,000 indoor self-storage facility. As mentioned, the market conditions have softened in regards to self-storage, and it was -- it is unclear if that will move forward. So for options, we had Trebilcock Consulting Services -- and Norm is here -- run different scenarios for different types of uses to see what could be put on there while maintaining that trip cap. So some of those would be a mix of office and medical, up to 40,000 maybe fitness or a larger sit-down restaurant. Staff has reviewed both the Growth Management Plan amendment and the PUD amendment, have found them sufficient both with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code, as well as Florida Statutes. And they are recommending that the Planning Commission forward the GMPA petition with a recommendation to approve, adopt, and transmit to Florida Department of Commerce, and they're recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval on the PUD amendment. With that, I will close my presentation, and if you have any questions for myself, Noel, or Norm, we're happy to answer those. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Planning Commissioners? No one's signaling at this point. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 8 of 21 Anyone want to be heard? Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. For use, we did get an e-mail concerning the sale of the golf carts, but also they implied that it may include ATVs. Is that included in the golf cart sales? I don't know why this person was concerned about ATVs, because they would still have to remain under the trip cap. But I guess, for the record, could you clarify? COMMISSIONER SHEA: They were worried about it running across the property and in the back looking for an area to practice. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To practice, and ATVs running around out there. MR. DAVIES: That's not the intent. "Golf cart" means golf cart. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Indoor? MR. DAVIES: Yes, and all limited to indoor. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCOTT: Indoor retail. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we'll turn it over to staff. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As the applicant had indicated, both on the Growth Management Plan and the PUD, staff is recommending approval. We recognize that this is not an increase within an intensity that's associated with this existing commercial development. It's just a response to provide for better market flexibility based upon the demands that ultimately are going to be yielded against this property and the overall needs of the community. So in that regard, staff is recommending approval. And I was encouraged to see, and I appreciate the applicant pointing out a number of the different uses that have already been developed, the McDonald's in the shopping plaza anchored by a hardware store, Ace Hardware. We think that these are the efforts that we're trying to promote to allow for the reduction within the trip length associated with the households within the Estates community having to gain goods and services, and the closer proximity that those goods and services are to those individual households only benefits that overall mission of the Planning department as well as the Transportation department of trying to really reduce trip lengths. That's the key to managing traffic within Collier County is trying to provide for the shortest trip length to be able to satisfy the needs of the individual household, and we think that this provides for more flexibility and ultimately will help accomplish that mission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we'll turn to public speakers. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, there are no registered public speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone who is not registered but is present in the room and wishes to be heard, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands raised, we will close the public comment segment of this proceeding and take the matter in our hands for deliberation and action. Who would like to be heard? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Chair, I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner Schumacher. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is this for both items? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Both items. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And there is no EAC approval required. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 9 of 21 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded to approve as submitted. And the only thing I will say is that to me what was determinative is that the trip cap stays where it is at 475, which was an entitlement coming into these proceedings. So that -- that and the consistency with what's going on near the Randall Curve these days is -- oh, and also if one looks at commercial needs analysis, which one always should for our Growth Management Plan amendment involving commercial, this action has been taken because of a concern that there may not be sufficient need for more self-storage. So this is in keeping with the commercial needs of that area of the community. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for clarity, Mike, since you do have a letter in opposition, or an e-mail in opposition, this will not go on the consent agenda for the Board, or will it? MR. BOSI: I'm going to speak with the County Attorney's Office. The concern was commercial creep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. BOSI: And this is not commercial creep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. BOSI: This is an existing commercial establishment. This is just an allowance for an alternative between self-storage, which is an allowed use, and the commercial uses already allowed within the -- within the PUD with the addition of the indoor golf carts. So I'm not -- I don't believe -- I think the clarification that this isn't commercial creep would allow for this to go on summary because there is no -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would only recommend, then -- because I think Nancy forwarded us the e-mail -- somebody just respond to the person and say -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- "appreciate your concern. Here's the issue. This is not going to happen," as I've put on the record, regarding the ATVs, and that is not -- it is not -- they will still have to stay within the trip cap. Okay. Thanks. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, the motion and second is on both the Growth Management Plan amendment and the CPUD amendment. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant and staff -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chris, Noel, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- staff, members of the public. MR. DAVIES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We're moving right along here. ***So next -- next we will hear PL20240008157. This is the proposed updated approval of residential building permits, Land Development Code amendment. The matter's purely 5.A.c Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 10 of 21 legislative in nature, no quasi-judicial companion; thus, no need for swearing in of witnesses or ex parte disclosures. You have the floor, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, for the record, my name is Eric Johnson. I'm the LDC planning manager in the Zoning division. Today I have the privilege of introducing to you a Land Development Code amendment, PL20240008157. This Land Development Code amendment is being prompted by recent changes to the Florida Statutes, particularly Chapter 177.073, and that was approved by the Governor earlier this year and will become effective October 1st. It's staff's aspiration to introduce this amendment to the Board of County Commissioners prior to October 1st. I have a very brief PowerPoint presentation I'd like to give you, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Yes, it is. MR. JOHNSON: So as I mentioned, this is being prompted by the changes to the Florida Statutes which deals with plats. That -- Section 177.073 is known as the expedited approval of residential building permits before a final plat is recorded. This Land Development Code amendment is proposing changes to multiple sections of the LDC and companion Administrative Code amendment changes, which is in your packet as an exhibit. By no later than October 1st, 2024, it requires the county to update the building permit process so an applicant may request up to 50 percent of plan homes or the number of building permits that will be issued for a residential subdivision or a planned community before a final plat is recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Once the County Commission approves a final subdivision plat, this would allow a homebuilder or a developer to apply for and receive building permits for up to 50 percent of those lots. By 2027, that number goes up from 50 percent to 75 percent. This is applicable to our county. If a governing body has a program in place prior to July 1st, 2023, to expedite the building permit process, it only needs to update the program to approve an applicant's written application. Prior to July 1st, 2023, the county has been conducting an existing program. So what we'll -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: What can they do now in terms of percentage? MR. JOHNSON: There is no percentage for homes that could be -- it's like model homes. It's not homes that are eventually going to be -- well, I guess you could say a model home will be lived in. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can they get permits for 50 percent of the homes that that -- MR. JOHNSON: No, not -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there something that says they can't? MR. JOHNSON: I'm hearing from Director Jaime Cook, yes, they cannot apply -- they cannot get permits for those, for homes other than a model home. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: And so the Florida Statutes have changed, kind of compelling us to allow up to 50 percent and then eventually up to 75 percent. So the proposed LDC changes, we would rename the "optional preliminary subdivision plat" to "conceptual plat with deviations." You'll see that sprinkled throughout your document. This allows for deviations from design standards not elsewhere allowed. In LDC Section 10.02.04, we would rename the section to collectively be requirements for subdivision plats rather than preliminary and final subdivision plats. Florida Statutes 177.073 refers to a preliminary plat and a final plat. Since the county only has one submission to the Board for final plat, it will serve as the preliminary plat under the statute. And as I mentioned, this -- these changes would allow for an applicant to identify up to 50 percent of the plan homes or number of building permits that may be issued for a -- before a final plat is recorded with this Clerk of the Circuit Court. The idea is that the plat -- and I didn't mention this before, the plat would be approved by 5.A.c Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 11 of 21 the Board of County Commissioners, and then the developer can apply for the -- apply for and receive building permits prior to recordation of the plat. So in Section 10.02.04.B.4.D, it would read -- and this is on Page 26 of the LDC amendment, Packet Page 482 -- "After Board approval of the final subdivision plat, building permits may be issued for a percentage of plan homes in accordance with the Florida Building Code and pursuant to Florida Statutes 177.073. Subdivision performance security shall be in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.04.F, as in foxtrot, 3, lowercase b, as in bravo, and then i -- lower case i as in India, and the construction and maintenance agreement shall be in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.04.F, as in foxtrot, 3, and then lowercase e, as in echo, when utilizing Florida Statutes 177.073." We did not stipulate 50 percent or 75 percent. We just are referring to the Florida statutes so that way we wouldn't have to make a change in 2027. Finally, in LDC Section 10 -- not finally, but in 10.02.04.F.3.e, we'd retain the existing first sentence without any change and modify the last sentence. And the whole -- the sentence would read, "This agreement shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat for review and approval and shall be executed by all parties at the time of Board approval if building permits are issued when utilizing Florida Statutes 177.073 or at the time of recording of the final plat." And that's on Page 30, which is your Packet Page 46. Finally, this would also change parts of the administrative code, the contents portion, Chapter 5 subdivision procedures, as well as Chapter 12 acronyms. So staff is recommending -- or staff is seeking your recommendation of approval for PL20240008157, which includes the changes to the Administrative Code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eric, I have several questions. I mean, this is pretty straightforward, and I understand clearly what the intent is, but let's go back to what was actually done. At one time we used to allow early work authorizations. You could get -- if you had a plat or a plan, you could get an early work authorization. It was nowhere near 50 percent, but anybody could always come in and ask for an early work. So what is different? MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, your director of Development Review at Growth Management. So the early work authorization, Commissioner, only allows for site work: Clearing, grading, those sorts of things. It doesn't actually allow for the construction of the homes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not allowed to go vertically. MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Simple terms, Joe Tentpag English, what are we really saving? Weeks? Months? Or years? MS. COOK: Up to a year and a half. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Really? MS. COOK: Yes. So once the subdivision plat is recorded by -- or is approved by the Board, the applicant has 18 months to actually go record that plat -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. COOK: -- before -- right now they can't get a building permit until that occurs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Till they -- till the plat is recorded? MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so this is going to allow a developer to begin to build homes. Now, will they be able to sell those homes and transfer? Because without a final plat, I'm kind of curious how they would do a site -- a homesite -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Survey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- survey for transfer. MS. COOK: So they can enter into a contract with a buyer, but they cannot obtain a TCO or a CO until the plat has been recorded. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, fundamentally, all we're doing here is they're giving 5.A.c Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 12 of 21 them months to start construction and put homes on the market? MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As far as staff's concerned -- I mean, the PPL at one time, I recall, was nothing more than the preliminary site layout, and it kind of defined how they were going to -- you know, define the preserves and the road network and some -- it didn't even -- usually didn't even have the road network. It just was a preliminary layout. This is now all eliminated. MS. COOK: So the -- I think what you're referring to was the old preliminary subdivision plat, the PSP process. The current PPL process has the roads laid out. It has the individual lots. It has where stormwater is. It has the specs for those -- the lakes, the slopes. It has the preserve locations. It has -- the current PPL process has everything. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the -- it's beneficial to the developer, which is what the intent was. MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What is the impact on staff? MS. COOK: The only impact that staff is really going to have with this is we will have to track the building permits to ensure that they don't apply for or receive more than that 50 or 75 percent. We've already worked with our IT team at GMD and have worked through that process of how to be able to track this, and we'll be able to implement that by October 1st. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I mean, CityView, you're going to do that. MS. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. On a large development, let's say 2-, 3-, 4,000 acres, they're developed in phases. Is it -- so it's 50 percent of only the area that's going to eventually be platted? MS. COOK: It will -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not 50 percent of the total -- I don't know. Let's say one of the rural villages, they come in and they're going to build certain villages throughout -- throughout the community. It's only 50 percent of the intended area that's eventually going to be platted, not 50 percent of all the homes in the -- in the receiving area or in a PUD? MS. COOK: Correct. It will be 50 percent of that specific plat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. All questions answered. I mean, it's a state law. We have to comply. I just wanted to be clear as to what the intent was or how it -- the impact. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I want to perhaps -- if my understanding is correct -- and if it's not, please correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe that Tallahassee was acting to resolve problems in other counties -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- not ours, where there were long, long delays taking place. Am I correct about that? MS. COOK: I would expect yes. Collier County has a very straightforward process that works both for the county staff as well as the developers. We do know that in other counties, they may go through several reviews or several hearings before they can actually get a subdivision plat approved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's undoubtedly going to have more effect or other counties that have been slower to -- with respect to the approval process, correct? MS. COOK: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything else from staff on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything from the Planning Commission before we see about public comment? 5.A.c Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 13 of 21 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. Do we have any public comment? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, there are no registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone who is in the room who hasn't registered but would like to be heard on this matter, please raise your hand. I see no hands rising, so we will close the public comment segment of this hearing and take the matter under consideration for deliberation and action. Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve the LDC amendment, updated approval of residential building permits as presented by staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 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. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much, staff. All right. And we -- MS. COOK: I have one more. There's one more. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. Wait. COMMISSIONER SHEA: She's doing the next one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm going to announce it, okay. Okay. The next one is 20240008157, and this is the proposed updated approval of residential building permits. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. This is the excavation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We just did that. That's the one we just did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We sure did. You know something, I didn't copy this correctly. Give me that for a moment. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's No. 4. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Oh, boy. ***All right. Next up is -- I don't see a PL in here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This isn't. There's no PL in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Why don't you announce it for me then, Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, your director of Development Review. So 9A4 is -- goes along with the LDC amendments that you just heard for updating the building permit approval process for subdivision plats. Our excavation ordinance, which is in the Code of Laws, references developers being able to utilize the PSP, or the preliminary subdivision plat process, in order to obtain a development excavation permit. From what staff has seen in the past, we do not typically do a PSP for excavation -- for a development excavation, as they need to come in for a development excavation permit. So it is a 5.A.c Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 14 of 21 redundant requirement in our code that we're simply just trying to remove as we move forward with compliance with this new state statute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have a PL number? MS. COOK: We do not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We do not. That's rather usual, is it not? MR. BOSI: It's -- Mike Bosi, Zoning director. It's unusual -- this is actually piggybacking on 9.3. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. MR. BOSI: So it's interrelated to it, but it is a separate change to the ordinance, but it's a reaction because of 9.3. So it's kind of piggybacking on the PL number that's associated with 9.3, the residential building permits related to plats. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I make a motion to approve the amendment of Excavation Ordinance No. 04-55, as presented by staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 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. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And now -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Jaime, can I just ask one question of clarity? MS. COOK: Only if you don't change the vote. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the process, you can still do -- you can still do excavations. MS. COOK: Oh, absolutely, yes. They just -- all excavation permits require a separate excavation permit anyway. So the PSP that was referenced in the excavation ordinance is duplicative and unnecessary. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought this is. But you can still do -- I mean, if there's a fill -- you still -- you still have to -- this does not, in any way, circumvent any of the federal laws and requirements for filling of wetlands or any other issue. You still have to have all the proper state permits and federal permits before any of this work is executed. MS. COOK: Absolutely, yes, sir. They will still apply for their excavation permit, and prior to beginning any construction on site, they will have to provide any state and federal permits required. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MS. COOK: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Now, has it been seconded? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, thanks. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 15 of 21 Now, for the purposes of specifying this, I think you mentioned a number. Was it 0455 or 2455? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was -- I thought I read the -- from the 0455; was that correct? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's LDCA 0455? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I'm still a little confused because ordinarily 04 would mean 2004, would it not? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it's the ordinance number, right? MR. BOSI: Yeah. That's the ordinance [sic] the LDC was amended. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. All right. So it'll have -- it'll have a different number in the LDC? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please -- or have I voted already? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, sorry. Pardon me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just asked her a follow-on question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I got thrown for a loop here, so it's my bad, and I apologize. You don't give me a PL number, and I feel like -- I feel like I depend upon a teleprompter, and it stopped working, which is a bad feeling. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, not going down that road. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay, Joe. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, we've got one more thing, and that is a piece of new business. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm just packing up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I'm going to let Commissioner Sparrazza introduce this please. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, sir, Chairman. ***I've had the pleasure of being on this committee for about 20 months now, 22 months, whatever it is. October 1st was my anniversary date. And it's come up in a handful of discussions here in the public former that "wouldn't it be great if we could get together and talk about something?" So I said, "Why don't we tentatively, say, let's have an open workshop between, shall we call it, all three of the bodies at hand here, the Planning Commissions, the Board of County Commissioners, and the county staff?" I thought that if we actually planned something three times a year spaced out every four months, if we have the need for these three bodies to get together and discuss something, we could. It's already on the schedule. If we don't have a need for all three or even two of the bodies to get together, then that portion of the meeting can be opened back up to whatever -- this happens to correlate with the CCPC meetings -- we could open it up for a longer CCPC meeting. But the whole idea was to allow a time that all three bodies got together and discussed something. That something could be right down to the details of the AIU -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: AUIR. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: AIUI, right? Something like that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: AUIR. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: AUI, right, right. Something like that. We've 5.A.c Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 16 of 21 always talked about, "Gee, maybe we should get together and talk about something," and we never really have. The other point is, because of Sunshine Laws and everything involved, we can't get together and talk about anything openly. I put this down as a quick idea, as a note to my fellow commissioners here, and would hope that if the idea has any type of traction at all, that we could improve upon this and, obviously, ask for staff's input and even the Board of County Commissioners, if this is something they would like. So that's what I've put forth for discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Randy, back in my day when I was a Community Development administrator, as we used to call it back then, between myself and the Transportation administrator, we met a couple of times, maybe three times, with the Board, but they were -- we were tackling major issues: Concurrency, trip generation concurrency, and even at that time I believe we were even talking about moratoria in some of the issues. I remember one meeting we had, of course I was staff, but it was the Planning Commission and the planning commissioners. It was very productive. I think the second one probably wasn't so much. And I would -- we have to be careful here because it's taking time away from the Board as well from their duties. The real issue is it would really have to be structured and very definitive on what issues we want to address. But like I said, back then there were major issues. It was growth -- growth management, transportation concurrency, and other issues that this county was trying to go through. And, of course, the other issues with schedules related to AUIR, but road construction, capacity, either at the landfill or issues doing [sic] with -- with water and sewer. So I don't know. I would have to say if -- I would agree with it as long as it's something that would be of value and not just kind of a dog-and-pony show. It just has to be of some value and some purpose and intent. Otherwise, we, as Planning Commission -- and in the past we've done this as well. We actually met at Horseshoe for workshops, and that was just planning commissioner -- planning commissioners. It typically is not a meeting where we have a court reporter. It's just a -- they do a summary meeting, and we discuss issues at hand in regards to pretty much background, education, and to educate commissioners on certain aspects of the process, similar to what we discussed today, PPL and some other type of things. So it -- it would -- I think we'd have to be very definitive and outline what is our objective. And I guess I defer to staff what they think, because certainly Mike and Ray were back -- were part of the team back then as well. And I remember one worked out well. The other one, probably not so -- not so -- not so good. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thanks, Joe. If I can make a comment. What I was anticipating, and I didn't state it in my opening remarks, was throughout now, up till December or January, if there's topics that come up and we say, "You know what, that would be great to have a further detailed discussion on at a workshop, great, we have one scheduled for, for example, February 20th." If we go through our normal meetings and there are no topics that come up that would be applicable to have at a workshop like this, then the workshop doesn't take place. But just trying to keep in mind, geez, every four months, if we wanted to bring something up for discussion, we have a time and a date set up. If there's nothing on the agenda, the meeting is canceled. But I agree with you, it can't just be, "Let's get together and have lunch." There has to be some substance to requesting the meeting, as you said, because everyone's time is extremely valuable, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 17 of 21 Anyone else want to be heard on this? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Chair, I think it's a great idea. I know the secretary brought up multiple times of us having a workshop with Transportation, so that could easily fall right into this, which, you know, anytime we need a workshop to expand on that, I'm all for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Johnson? MR. JOHNSON: We wouldn't hear him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, speak into your mic, please, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Sorry. What I had said was as the secretary had pointed out in previous meetings on having a workshop with Transportation, which we haven't had yet, this would kind of fit into that role where the first one you would have, we could -- we could do with a Transportation aspect, and then if there's another matter that rolls up on that next meeting, that could help expedite matters at hand versus, you know, us taking time from staff repeatedly; you just kind of get it all done in one shot, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. For my part, I'm fully supportive of the concept, and I think timeliness is also good because going forward in 2025, we're probably going to have one or more new planning commissioners, and there are -- there are certain complexities and conundrums, such as traffic and transportation, that impose limitations on what we're able to do, particularly when you're up against potential deficiencies on roadway segments that it would be helpful for all of us to be reminded of and for new people to be educated on. So I support it. Obviously, it's the Board of County Commissioners who's going to have the final say on whether they participate, and I wouldn't presume to second guess where they would come down on that. But if they were to be involved, that would be quite useful to us. If they were not involved, we could still go forward with staff and become educated. So it -- this -- the idea has my support. Anybody else want to be heard on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: What, then, Commissioner Sparrazza, should the next steps be? Do you want staff to communicate with the Board? How do you want us to go forward? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I think that could be an open conversation between staff and CCPC. What would you think would be the next course of action? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Often -- you know, when I saw this -- and I completely understand and agree with the benefit of, you know, enhanced communication. What I would say is the Board not only serves their capacity as the BCC but as the chair of a number of advisory committees that they sit on as well. I think four times a year scheduling a workshop with the Board of County -- or three times a year scheduling a workshop with the Board of County Commissioners may be more of an obligation than they're willing to obligate themselves to. But what I would say is with this three -- three-workshop-a-year concept, having the Planning Commission when we identify -- and the reason I said four is because there was four dates that were skipped here. But we could condense it to three. I think we would have a benefit from scheduling that workshop after the Planning Commission meeting has completed. And the Planning Commission prior -- well prior to that first -- that workshop day indicating what's the topic that you'd like to talk about. And I think Transportation and Transportation Planning is a terrific way to initiate that first individual workshop because of the way -- so the statute -- some of the statutes does tie our hands in a little bit of a way in terms of how we apply our Concurrency Management System, but how impact fees and how the overall background traffic is -- is incorporated, how future approvals are related to that -- to the background traffic, as well as the trip counts that we see on the roads, I think those would have a real benefit to the Planning Commission to understanding that. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 18 of 21 And then as we hit individual areas, if you find a topic where you really do think that you would like to engage, you know, the full Board of County Commissioners in a workshop, then staff could float that idea, you know, through the County Manager through coordination with the Board of County Commissioners as to whether they'd like to establish that and what date that could be. I think that would probably be a more balanced way to move forward without trying to obligate the Board on three set dates, but have the Board be aware that you will be having workshops on -- to talk about open-ended areas of interest and of interest to the county's planning activities, and then identify ones where we think you would like to have a joint workshop, because I know they are -- you know, their time is occupied throughout the week in a pretty consistent manner. But I think that having the ability for us to designate three specific times within the calendar year where the Planning Commission says, "This is what I'd like to talk to staff about because I'd like to -- we'd like to explore these topics" -- and I think, like I said, Transportation Planning would be a great way to move forward with a first workshop, and then we could -- as the next workshop schedule would be designated, two months prior -- because you'd want to give them enough time to prepare whatever the topic is, you want them -- whatever the department, whatever the issue is to be pretty well established and vetted so we could have some real good conversations within that workshop. I think that would be an appropriate way to move forward. And then when you hit something where you would really like to -- you think that there would be a benefit from, you know, having that interaction with the full -- the Board body could be an opportunity to say, "Okay, let's see. Can we get that joint workshop?" But what I do know is what it would allow you to do as well -- because each one of you are appointed by an individual commissioner. I know, Joe, you're an environmental, but you can have the opportunity to talk to any one of those commissioners -- it will help you promote some conversation with the individual commissioner to say, "Hey, you know, we had this workshop. We're interested in potentially, you know, having more perspective" or just you pushing back or talking to the commissioners about some of the things you learned within that workshop. It would help you promote some -- some inroads of dialogue. I'm not sure how often you speak with your individual commissioner, but it can provide for inroads of dialogue that you would maybe not have otherwise thought of or kind of like brought to your attention that you'd like to talk to the commissioner about individually, and then if we want them to have a workshop, we could have that -- we could see if that would be something they would be amiable to. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mike, it sounds like a perfect compromise of initiating CCPC with staff two, possibly three times a year and, as appropriate, ask for that meeting being joined by the BCC. MR. BOSI: Yes, because then we would have to, for that workshop, you know, advertise and Sunshine and all the stuff. We'd have to be ready, getting the room ready, set up for the appropriate manner. But I think that -- I think that really does help us or allow the Planning Commission to dive into something that you don't -- because when we have these individual petitions, I mean, the two LDC amendments we got a little bit more ability to kind of -- to explain how, why, and what we do and what -- why the statute change is changing -- is causing us to change. But we don't really get into, all right, how does Transportation specifically get to their recommendation of approval when you have about 45, 50 people saying, "Oh, but the traffic over at this segment of road is unacceptable," but Transportation has a level of -- has a level of service they find that there's capacity on the road system, and they're moving forward. So having dialogue in between what the realities are that people are expressing and how Transportation goes about, you know, reviewing petitions, I think, most certainly, would have a beneficial effect. And with two new commissioners going to be coming onto the dais, I think it's going to be -- it would be something that -- we should probably plan for that first meeting at the 5.A.c Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 19 of 21 turn of the year to be that workshop -- our workshop to kick us off, and then we can go from there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I could think of a lot of topics. You could talk to us about concurrency, which we think we understand, but I don't -- I've never heard a really good presentation that I've been able to mentally grasp on concurrency, which I guess is mostly on the transportation side, or is that with all -- it's all the infrastructure. MR. BOSI: No, it's all -- no, it's all your Category A facilities. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. BOSI: All your Category A facilities are the ones -- it's parks, it's your utilities, it's transportation, it's stormwater, it's schools. Those are the ones that have to be analyzed from a checkbook -- and we used to call it checkbook concurrency. And the checkbook concurrency is nice because everyone -- well, people used to use checks, and you would have to make sure -- you'd deduct your -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I still do. MR. BOSI: You would deduct your amount of your check to make sure that you weren't overdrawn against your balance. So that concept people would understand, so we called it a checkbook concurrency. So it's the same thing for Transportation, for Utilities, for Parks, making sure that there was enough capacity to handle the additional loads that these projects were going. That's the concept of it. But the application of it, I think, is -- has been influenced by statutes, and there's been an evolution, so I think there would be benefits of that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Timing -- timing is very important, and that's the part of concurrency that confuses most people is when you put the timing -- MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- of when's this development coming in, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Does the Board have any -- BCC have any of these types of workshops that Randy's suggesting on their own? MR. BOSI: Well, the Board started -- and normally in January, at the turn of the year, they will have workshops on topics at hand, January, February, and March, sometimes in April. But the seasonal months they will -- almost every year they schedule individual workshops on topics that they feel is important to discuss with the community. Sometimes it can be joint workshops with the City of Naples, sometimes with the City of Marco Island. So the Board of County Commissioners regularly does have workshops starting in the seasonal months. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So some of the topics they have we might be interested in, might fit into what Randy's talking about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you very much. Anybody else want to be heard on this? If not -- MR. BOSI: And I would say, we will coordinate with Transportation Planning to have the first -- that February 20th to be the first workshop that we're going to have to talk just about transportation and transportation in general, and I'm sure Transportation would look forward to providing some education and enlightenment to the Planning Commission in terms of how they do their job and what -- you know, the time frames we're looking at but also some of the work that we do within the MPO that's not only within the short term but the long term and how that works and how that fits into the overall paradigm of how we develop roads. You know, roads don't start off in your 5- or your 10-year CIE. They start off in your Long-Range Transportation Plan, and they have to be identified. Sometimes they're in the needs plan but not the -- they don't have the financing for it. But -- and eventually it works its way down and gets to the six- and the 10-year, which is your second year -- the second five years of your CIE, and then it gets to your -- to your Years 1 through 5, and then when it gets into Year 1 or 2 of the 5.A.c Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 20 of 21 project, it means fundings have been available, it's ready to start, it's going, it's a guarantee. So there's a lot of -- a lot of movement between that 25-, 30-year lookout to when the project actually starts. And I think they would do a terrific job of providing a good overview of how we go about that and how our projects fit within that continuum. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner Sparrazza, for bringing that up. It looks like we are unanimous in our support of the idea, and the matter's in the hands of staff to see if we can carry it forward. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, everybody, for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. BOSI: And, Chair, before you break, I just wanted to recognize and thank Mr. Derek Perry who was able to expertly navigate us through the perilous waters of legality in an intact form. So thank you, Derek. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I second that. Thank you. MR. BOSI: As you notice, Ms. Ashton wasn't here today, so he was riding solo, so I just wanted to call that out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for saving us from ourselves. Thank you. All right. Is there any other new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public comment, matters that are not on the agenda, now would be the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't see any hands raised. So without objection, we are adjourned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. ******* 5.A.c Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 15, 2024 Page 21 of 21 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:04 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _________________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ___________ or as corrected __________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.c Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 08-15-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes (29720 : 8/1/2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes) 09/20/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Doc ID: 29774 Item Summary: PL20240004018 - Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA - Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay and specifically amending the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of the Future Land Use Element, to eliminate the cap on the size of a town and include qualified target industries as a goods and services use, and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Commerce. [Coordinator: James Sabo, Zoning, Planning Manager] Meeting Date: 09/20/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: James Sabo 08/26/2024 6:46 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 08/26/2024 6:46 PM Approved By: Review: Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/05/2024 4:29 PM Unknown Jaime Cook GMCDD Reviewer Completed 09/06/2024 8:54 AM Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch GMD Approver Completed 09/07/2024 10:42 AM Zoning James Sabo Review Item Completed 09/09/2024 8:38 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Completed 09/09/2024 2:50 PM Growth Management Community Development Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 09/13/2024 4:01 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 09/20/2024 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 215 1 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 SUBJECT: PL20240004018 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT GMPA; RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY TRANSMITTAL HEARING ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AGENT/APPLICANT: Agents: Christopher Scott, AICP Rich Yovanovich, Attorney Peninsula Engineering, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich, Koester, PLLC 2600 Golden Gate Parkway 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34103 Owner: Ave Maria Development, LLLP 1500 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34150 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The existing Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay is comprised of ±185,000 acres. It is located within the eastern and northern portions of Collier County. The property is known as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Staff Report Final - RLSA GMPA PL24-4018 [Revision 4] (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 2 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Staff Report Final - RLSA GMPA PL24-4018 [Revision 4] (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 3 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant, Ave Maria Development, LLLP, proposes a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) for text changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The proposed amendment will remove the maximum acreage for a Town in the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The current maximum area for a Town is 5,000 acres. Additionally, the applicant seeks to clarify that Goods and Services includes certain business and industry type uses, such as Florida Qualified Target Industries. The proposed amendment also includes text changes to Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 4.7.1, Policy 4.7.4, and Attachment C. (Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant states that the amendment seeks to remove the maximum 5,000-acre size of a Town and clarify that “goods and services” required within Town and Village SRAs “may” include employment centers, such as manufacturing and Florida Qualified Target Industries. The applicant states that goods and services should not be limited to retail and office uses. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Subject Property: The RLSA is a broad area of land in the eastern and northern portions of the County. Surrounding Lands: North: Hendry County, Okaloacoochee Slough, Agricultural and Residential Uses. East: Hendry County, Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Area, Agricultural Uses. South: Collier County, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Agricultural Uses. West: Audubon Corkscrew Swamp, Golden Gate Rural Estates, Agricultural and Residential Uses. In summary, the surrounding land uses are primarily agricultural and wildlife refuge areas with greater residential uses toward the west. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Collier County established the RLSA program in 2002. The program is part of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The County implemented a stewardship program to address environmentally sensitive land in the eastern portions of the County. The program was designed to assess and address growth pressures in those same eastern rural and agricultural lands. The RLSA program established goals that retain agricultural activities, direct incompatible uses away from wetlands, enable the conversion of rural land to other uses, discourage urban sprawl, and encourage creative development and land use planning techniques through incentives. The RLSA encompasses approximately 185,000 acres in eastern Collier County. The RLSA program incentivizes the preservation and restoration of environmentally sensitive areas into Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) in exchange for SSA Credits (Credits). These Credits are available to allow higher-intensity mixed-use developments, known as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA), in appropriate locations and subject to specific design criteria. SRAs can be developed as Towns, Villages , or Compact Rural Developments. The RLSA Overlay Map on page 2 identifies significant environmental areas such as Water Retention Areas (WRA), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA), and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA). Lands not identified as WRA, HSA, or FSA are designated as Open Lands and are the appropriate location for new Towns, Villages, or Compact Rural Development SRAs. The Open Lands generally consist of predominantly 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Staff Report Final - RLSA GMPA PL24-4018 [Revision 4] (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 4 agricultural lands that have been cleared or altered. Additionally, the Open Lands include a 500’ Restoration Area located adjacent to FSAs and two potential Panther Corridor locations on the Overlay Map. EXISTING AND PENDING SRAs In 2021, the Board approved Ordinance 2021-28, which revised the RLSA program to limit the number of SSA credits available for the development of SRAs. Currently, the RLSA has established 18 SSAs protecting approximately 48,000 acres of sensitive lands (SSA Credits spreadsheet attached). There are three additional SSAs pending approval. They are SSAs 19, 20, and 21, which would potentially increase the acreage by 5,128 for an approximate total of 53,000 acres. They are listed here: SSA 19: 560.2 acres / 4,481.6 credits SSA 20: 655.7 acres / 1,271.7 credits SSA 21: 3,912.41 acres / 10,659.0 acres The above SSAs, pending and approved, have provided for eight existing SRAs and one pending SRAs on approximately 11,000 acres. The SRAs are detailed in the table below: SRA Name SRA Type Total Acres Public Benefit Net Acres Ave Maria Town 5,928.00 998.001 4,930.00 Longwater* Village 0 0 Rivergrass Village 997.53 997.53 Hyde Park Village 642.52 642.52 Brightshore Village 681.50 681.50 Bellmar Village 999.74 999.74 Big Cypress Town 1,544.46 1,544.46 Horse Trials** Village 1,217.84 1,217.84 Collier Rod & Gun CRD 259.60 259.60 TOTAL 12,271.19 998.00 11,273.19 1 Ave Maria approval excludes Public Benefit Use acreage, including University District, from SRA acreage * The 991.81-acre Longwater Village was incorporated into the Town of Big Cypress ** Under Review/Pending If project PL20240004018 GMPA for the RLSA is approved and adopted by the BCC, the maximum Town size of 5,000 acres would be removed. Moving forward, the appropriate action for staff would be to include the total SRA acreage to date against the 45,000 acre cap for each new proposed town or village. PETITIONER NEEDS ANALYSIS: The applicant states that approval of the GMPA will further the RLSA’s ability to: • create mixed-use, self-sufficient SRAs that utilize shared services, facilities, and infrastructure. • further enable economic prosperity through development of planned land uses and employment centers. • increase internal capture and reduce trip length and long-distance travel. The RLSA Group 4 Policies pertain to the development of SRAs. SRAs can be in the form of a Town, Village, or Compact Rural Development (CRD). Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and Attachment C, RLSA SRA Characteristics outline the minimum standards for each type of SRA. The primary differences are summarized below: SRA Standards: Town Village CRD Size 1,500-5,000 acres 300-1,500 acres 300 acres or less Goods and Services 170 sf per du 53 sf per du 10 sf per du Civic, Gov, Inst 15 sf land area per du 10 sf floor area per du n/a Community Park 200 sf per du n/a n/a 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Staff Report Final - RLSA GMPA PL24-4018 [Revision 4] (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 5 The applicant contends that Towns, being the largest and most diverse type of SRA, require substantially more “goods and services” than a Village or CRD. Additionally, Towns are required to provide Community Parks within their boundaries. During the recent public hearings for the RLSA restudy and GMP Amendments, the consensus from the public and commissioners was that Towns are preferable to Villages and smaller projects. The applicant further states that Towns and larger developments provide greater flexibility and more opportunity for smart growth by creating areas that can create jobs. As noted in Policy 4.2, the petitioner states that SRAs can be designated on “privately owned lands within the RLSA…, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land designated as an SSA.” The Policy also states that “the specific location, size, and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP.” The RLSA program does not include a minimum separation between SRA’s. Therefore, if an existing Town wanted to expand above the 5,000-acre limit, the only recourse would be to establish a separate, adjacent SRA. The applicant provided the following table that compares the additional non-residential uses and community park area that is required for an existing Town to add 1,500 acres and 4,000 dwelling units if done as an expanded Town without an acreage cap or by adding an adjacent Village. An expanded Town requires significantly more commercial floor area and community park acreage than if developed as a separate Village. Development Example Expanded Town Adjacent Village Size +1,500 acres +1,500 acres Dwelling Units +4,000 dwelling units +4,000 dwelling units Goods and Services +680,000 sf gross floor area +212,000 sf gross floor area Civic, Gov, Inst +1.38-acres +40,000 sf gross floor area Community Park +18.37-acres None Required The petitioner contends that by removing the maximum size of Towns allows for additional residential units and population within the Town. The resulting increase in population provides a larger consumer base and demand for a variety of goods, services, and amenities. This increase in population is attractive to investors and businesses looking for new markets to help meet this demand. As more businesses locate within the Town, they support each other through supply chains and business-to-business services, creating a synergistic environment that fosters further economic growth and job creation. This critical mass is essential for attracting major employers with higher-paying wages. The petitioner further contends that Towns, with a full array of goods and services, public amenities, and employment centers, allow residents to meet most of their needs within the Town. This increases the internal capture of the SRA’s anticipated vehicular trips, reducing the number of external trips onto the County roadways and the overall vehicle miles traveled by Town residents. Allowing the additional land to be incorporated into the existing Town SRA boundary, as opposed to a separate Village or CRD, requires more non-residential floor area and employment opportunities, additional community parks, and more land area for civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The location and distribution of those uses, roads, stormwater, and utilities can be better coordinated and planned. Additionally, having a single SRA document allows for easier implementation by staff and developers. Staff finds that the information provided here by the petitioner satisfies the Needs Analysis requirement based on the research provided. Compliance with applicable Florida Statutes is provided here. 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. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Staff Report Final - RLSA GMPA PL24-4018 [Revision 4] (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 6 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, as indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. 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. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Staff Report Final - RLSA GMPA PL24-4018 [Revision 4] (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 7 Section 163.3177(6)(a)8. Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: The application is not for a site-specific location for a Growth Management Plan Amendment. A Neighborhood Information Meeting is not required for this application. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The RLSA program designates environmentally sensitive areas, including Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), and Water Retention Areas (WRAs), and prohibits the development of towns, villages, and compact rural developments. The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on either the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP or the requirements to create Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) on environmentally sensitive lands to entitle development elsewhere. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • The Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Amendment petition proposes a large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to update the RLSA to allow Town size to exceed 5,000 acres and to clarify that employment centers may include Qualified Targeted Industry businesses. • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historical 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. LEGAL REVIEW: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report on 8/28/2024 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission forward petition PL20240004018 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit the proposed Ordinance to the Florida Department of Commerce and other statutorily required agencies. NOTE: This petition has been tentatively scheduled for the November 12, 2024, BCC meeting. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Staff Report Final - RLSA GMPA PL24-4018 [Revision 4] (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 24-CMP-01223/1865518/10 RLSA Overlay PL20240004018 8/20/24 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. *** *** *** *** are a break in text 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024- _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, TO ELIMINATE THE CAP ON THE SIZE OF A TOWN AND INCLUDE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRIES AS A GOODS AND SERVICES USE; AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. [PL20240004018] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, 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, Chris Scott of Peninsula Engineering and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing Ave Maria Development, LLP requested amendments relating to Policy 4.7.1, Policy 4.7.4 and Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay of the Future Land Use Element Series; and WHEREAS, on __________________, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on _______________, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County’s proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Commerce have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendments and the Department of Commerce must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Exhibit A Resolution 08-21-24 (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 24-CMP-01223/1865518/10 RLSA Overlay PL20240004018 8/20/24 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. *** *** *** *** are a break in text 2 of 2 WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from the Department of Commerce must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the Department of Commerce, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County’s adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Commerce and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this _________ day of __________________, 2024. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By:_________________________ By: _______________________________ Deputy Clerk Chris Hall, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: ________________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit “A” – Text amendments and attachments 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Exhibit A Resolution 08-21-24 (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deletions Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES * * * * * * * * * * * * * F. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay * * * * * * * * * * * * * Group 4 – Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Policy 4.7.1: Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be greater than 1,500 acres and up to 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobility plan, which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town, subject to Level of Service Requirements. Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, described in Policy 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research, development companies, and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE and those included in 4.7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns are included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Policy 4.7.4 Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA, to further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification and lobjob creation. The business and industry use allowed includes, but is not limited to, those as defined as Florida Qualified Target Industries. These uses shall count towards the goods and services required for Towns and Villages by Policy 4.15.1 and Attachment C. The appropriate scale and compatibility of these uses within a Town or Village will be addressed during SRA application process. 08/21/2024 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Exhibit A Resolution 08-21-24 (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deletions Page 2 of 2 Attachment C Collier County RLSA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics Typical Characteristics Town* Village Compact Rural Development Size (Gross Acres) Greater than 1,500-5,000 acres 300-1,500 acres** 300 Acres or less** Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base density 1-4 DUs per gross acre*** 1-4 DUs per gross acre*** 1-4 DUs per gross acre*** Residential Housing Styles Full range of single family and multi-family housing types, styles, lot sizes Diversity of single family and multi-family housing types, styles, lot sizes Single Family and limited multi-family**** Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Retail & Office - .5 Civic/Governmental/Institutional - .6 Manufacturing/Light Industrial - .45 Group Housing - .45 Transient Lodging – 26 upa net Retail & Office - .5 Civic/Governmental/Institutional - .6 Group Housing - .45 Transient Lodging – 26 upa net Retail & Office - .5 Civic/Governmental/Institutional - .6 Group Housing - .45 Transient Lodging – 26 upa net Goods and Services***** Town Center with Community and Neighborhood Goods and Services in Town and Village Centers: Minimum 170 SF gross building area per DU; Corporate Office, Manufacturing and Light Industrial Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village Centers: Minimum 53 SF gross building area per DU Convenience Goods and Services: Minimum 10 SF gross building area per DU; research, education, tourism/recreation Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment systems Interim Well and Septic Centralized or decentralized community treatment systems Interim Well and Septic Individual Well and Septic System; Centralized or decentralized community treatment system Recreation and Open Spaces Community Parks (200 SF/DU), subject to Level of Service Requirements Parks & Public Green Spaces w/in Neighborhoods Active Recreation/Golf Courses Lakes Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Parks & Public Green Spaces w/in Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Active Recreation/Golf Courses Lakes Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Public Green Space for Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Civic, Governmental and Institutional Uses Wide Range of Services – minimum 15 SF/DU of gross land area/DU Full Range of Schools Moderate Range of Services – minimum 10 SF/DU; Full Range of Schools Limited Services Pre-K through Elementary Schools Transportation Auto – interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system County Transit Station or Park and Ride Facility Auto – interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system Equestrian Trails County Transit Station or Park and Ride Facility Auto – interconnected system of local roads Pedestrian Pathways Equestrian Trails County Transit Access * - Towns are prohibited within the ACSC, per Policy 4.7.1 of the Goals, Objectives and Policies. ** - Villages and Compact Rural Developments within the ACSC are subject to location and size limitations, per Policy 4.21, and are subject to Chapter 28-25, FAC. *** - Density can be increased beyond the base density through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus or through the density blending provision, per Policy 4.7. **** - Those CRDs that include single or multi-family residential uses shall include proportionate support services. ***** - Goods and Services for Towns and Villages may include those business and industry uses, including Florida Qualified Target Industries, as described in Policy 4.7.4. Italicized uses are not required uses. 08/21/2024 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Exhibit A Resolution 08-21-24 (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 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 March 27, 2024 Collier County Growth Management Department Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA GMP Amendment – PL202420004018 1st Review To Whom It May Concern, Please find the attached Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) application to make minor text changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. This GMPA is not specific to an individual parcel and does not change the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) or the RLSA Overlay Map. The GMPA requires both a Transmittal and an Adoption Hearing. The following have been included for your review and approval: 1. Cover Letter 2. Email from Mike Bosi waiving Pre-Application Meeting 3. GMPA Application 4. Affidavit of Authorization 5. Property Ownership Disclosure Form 6. Proposed FLUE Text 7. Existing Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Map 8. Narrative, Criteria and Consistency 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. Sincerely, Christopher O. Scott, AICP Planning Manager 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 1 Chris Scott From:Michael Bosi <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent:Wednesday, March 6, 2024 2:37 PM To:Chris Scott Cc:James Sabo; Nick Casalanguida Subject:RE: RLSA GMPA - Maximum Town Size Chris, Please uƟlize this e-mail with your GMP-A applicaƟon submiƩal to recognize our meeƟng ON 2-28-24 as saƟsfying the pre-applicaƟon meeƟng requirement for the GMP-A. Sincerely, Mike Michael Bosi AICP Division Director - Planning & Zoning Zoning Office:239-252-1061 Mobile:239-877-0705 2800 North Horseshoe drive Naples, Florida 34104 Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov From: Chris Scott <cscott@pen-eng.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 2:20 PM To: Michael Bosi <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: James Sabo <James.Sabo@colliercountyfl.gov>; Nick Casalanguida <ncasalanguida@barroncollier.com> Subject: RLSA GMPA - Maximum Town Size EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Mike: I appreciate your Ɵme meeƟng with me and Nick last week. As discussed, we are planning on submiƫng a privately iniƟated GMPA to remove the maximum acreage for a Town and provide clarifica Ɵon language that “goods and services” are not solely limited to retail and service uses, but also includes employment centers, such as the Arthrex and Dialum Glass (manufacturing uses) faciliƟes in Ave Maria. We understand this would be a full Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would apply to all of the Rural Land Stewardship Area, requiring both a transmiƩal and adopƟon hearing before the BOCC. Given the limited nature of the proposed GMPA, may we submit without a formal pre-applicaƟon meeƟng? I am copying in James Sabo for awareness and am happy to reach out to the assigned planner prior to submiƫng. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 2 Christopher O. Scott, AICP Planning Manager PENINSULA ENGINEERING Direct: 239.403.6727 www.pen-eng.com 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. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) The application is to be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline. The applicant will be notified, in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 12-234. If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides Application to Amend The Growth Management Plan LDC subsection 10 Chapter 3 of the Administrative Code Revised 2023 Page 1 of 8Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ NaNammee ofof PrProp opeerrty ty OOwwnneerr(s)(s):: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NaNammee ofof AApppplliicant cant iiff ddiiffffeerreennt t ththaann oowwnneerr:: ____________________________________________________________________________________ AAddddrreess:ss: ___________________________________________________C _Ciity:ty: __________________________ SState: tate: _____________ _ ZZIIP: P: ____________________ TTeelleepphhon onee:: _______________________________________ _ CelCelll:: _______________________________________ _ FFaax:x: ______________________________________ EE--MMaaiill AAddddrreess:ss: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NaNammee ofof AAggeennt:t: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FiFirrmm:: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AdAdddrreess:ss: ___________________________________________C_Ciity:ty: ______________________________ StaState:te: __________________ ZZIIP: P: ____________________ TTeelleepphhononee:: __________________________________________ CellCell:: _________________________________________ _ Fax: Fax: __________________________________ EE--MMaaiill AAddddrreess:ss: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Name of Owner(s) of Records: ____________________________________________________ Address: __________________________City: _____________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: ___________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ *On an additional paper include the Name, Company, Address and Qualifications of all consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application, as well as Qualifications of the Agent identified above 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) A.If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides Revised 2023 Page 2 of 8 Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION B. 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. D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP:NAME: PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP:NAME: PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP:NAME: PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP:NAME: 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides Revised 2023 Page 3 of 8 Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ 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. PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP:NAME: DATE OF CONTRACT: F.If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. NAME: leased :________Term of lease: ______yrs./mos.G.Date subject property acquired If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: ______________ and date option terminates: ______________, or anticipated closing: _______________________. NOTE: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides Revised 2023 Page 4 of 8 Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ C.GENERAL LOCATION A.PARCEL I.D. NUMBER: B.LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (multi-line, fillable areas will hold as much text as needed) F.TAZ: D.Section: _______ Township: _______ Range: ________ E.PLANNING COMMUNITY: _______________________ G.SIZE IN ACRES: ______________H.ZONING: I.FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S): ______________________________________ J.SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN: A.GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TYPE OF REQUEST ______ Housing Element ______ Recreation/Open Space ______ Traffic Circulation Sub-Element ______ Mass Transit Sub-Element ______ Aviation Sub-Element ______ Potable Water Sub-Element ______ Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element ______ NGWAR Sub-Element ______ Solid Waste Sub-Element ______ Drainage Sub-Element ______ Capital Improvement Element ______ CCME Element ______ Future Land Use Element ______ Golden Gate Master Plan ______ Immokalee Master Plan B.AMEND PAGE (S): ____________ OF THE: ___________________________ ELEMENT 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides Revised 2023 Page 5 of 8 Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike-through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to Identify language to be added). (multi-line, fillable areas will hold as much text as needed) C.AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM: TO: D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: REQUIRED INFORMATION Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI’s, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. ENVIRONMENTAL Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN “A” ABOVE. Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.) Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I”=400’. At least one copy reduced to 8-1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. LAND USE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides Revised 2023 Page 6 of 8 Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ PUBLIC FACILITIES Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: GROWTH MANAGEMENT INSERT “Y” FOR YES OR “N” FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference , F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S.? (Reference , F.A.C.) Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S.? Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference , F.A.C.) Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. Potable Water Sanitary Sewer Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Drainage Solid Waste Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides Revised 2023 Page 7 of 8 Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies): Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency. Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) Coastal High Hazard Area, if applicable High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small-Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) *If you have held a pre-application meeting within 9 months prior to submitted date and paid the pre-application fee of $500.00 at the meeting, deduct that amount from the above application fee amount when submitting your application. All pre-application fees are included in the total application submittal fee if petition submitted within 9 months of pre-application meeting date. Otherwise the overage will be applied to future proportionate share advertising costs. *Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1”=400’ or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. *All attachments should be consistently referenced as attachments or exhibits, and should be labeled to correlate to the application form, e.g. “Exhibit I.D.” *Planning Community, TAZ map, Traffic Analysis Zone map, Zoning maps, and Future Land Use Maps. Some maps are available on the Zoning Division website depicting information herein: F.OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Zoning Services Section: _________________ Comprehensive Planning Section: ________________ 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 237Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a.If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership b.If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership c.If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) d.If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership e.If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f.If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g.Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Date of option: _________________________ Date option terminates: __________________, or Anticipated closing date: ________________ AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition’s final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department | GMD Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) AVE MARIA DEVELOPMENT GP Barron Collier Corpora�on 0.0500% GP Nua Baile. LLC 0.0500% LP BCAM, LLLP 49.9500% LP Thomas S. Monaghan Irrevocable Grantor Trust 49.9500% BARRON COLLIER CORPORATION (GP) Share Holder Juliet C. Sproul Family Inheritance Trust 25.000000% Share Holder Barron Collier III 25.000000% Share Holder R. Blakeslee Gable 6.250000% Share Holder M. Wells Gable 2021 Trust 6.250000% Share Holder Christopher D. Villere 4.166666% Share Holder Mathilde V. Currence 4.166667% Share Holder Lamar G. Villere 4.166667% Share Holder Phyllis Gable Alden Trust dtd 06-21-1988, as amended 12.500000% Share Holder Donna G. Keller Irrevocable Trust 12.500000% NUA BAILE, LLC (GP) Manager: Thomas S. Monaghan Manager: Paul Roney Manager: George Forrest III BCAM, LLLP (LP) GP Barron Collier Corpora�on 0.1000% LP Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP 99.9000% BARRON COLLIER CORPORATION Share Holder Juliet C. Sproul Family Inheritance Trust 25.000000% Share Holder Barron Collier III 25.000000% Share Holder R. Blakeslee Gable 6.250000% Share Holder M. Wells Gable 2021 Trust 6.250000% Share Holder Christopher D. Villere 4.166666% Share Holder Mathilde V. Currence 4.166667% Share Holder Lamar G. Villere 4.166667% Share Holder Phyllis Gable Alden Trust dtd 06-21-1988, as amended 12.500000% Share Holder Donna G. Keller Irrevocable Trust 12.500000% 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP, a Florida limited liability limited partnership Barron Collier Management LLC – GP – 1% Juliet C. Sproul – 0.25000% Barron G. Collier IV – 0.06250% Alexandra E. Collier – 0.06250% Lara C. Grady (Collier)– 0.06250% Christopher C. Collier – 0.06250% Robert B. Gable- 0.06250% Michael Wells Gable- 0.06250% Christopher D. Villere- 0.04167% Mathilde V. Currence- 0.04167% Lamar G. Villere- 0.04166% William Cameron Doane- 0.06250% Mary Marguerite Doane- 0.06250% Ashleigh N. Ora (Keller)- 0.02500% Chelsea K. Kunde (Keller)- 0.02500% Kathryn E. Keller- 0.02500% Mathew D. Keller- 0.02500% Stephen B. Keller- 0.02500% Juliet C. Sproul Family Inheritance Trust - LP – 24.75% Juliet C. Sproul – 24.7500% Barron Collier III Life�me Irrevocable Trust – LP – 24.75% Barron G. Collier IV - 6.1875% Alexander E. Collier - 6.1875% Lara C. Grady (Collier) - 6.1875% Christopher C. Collier - 6.1875% Lamar Gable Life�me Irrevocable Trust - LP – 12.375% Robert B. Gable - 6.1875% Michael W. Gable - 6.1875% Frances G. Villere Life�me Irrevocable Trust for Christopher D. Villere Family - LP – 4.125% Christopher D. Villere - 4.1250% Frances G. Villere Life�me Irrevocable Trust for Mathilde V. Currence Family - LP – 4.125% Mathilde V. Currence - 4.1250% Frances G. Villere Life�me Irrevocable Trust for Lamar G. Villere Family - LP – 4.125% Lamar G. Villere - 4.1250% Phyllis G. Alden Life�me Irrevocable Trust - LP – 12.375% 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) William Cameron Doane - 6.1875% Mary Marguerite Doane - 6.1875% Donna G. Keller Life�me Irrevocable Trust - LP – 12.375% Ashleigh N. Ora (Keller) - 2.4750% Chelsea K. Kunde (Keller) - 2.4750% Kathryn E. Keller - 2.4750% Mathew D. Keller - 2.4750% Stephen B. Keller - 2.4750% Thomas S. Monaghan Irrevocable Grantor Trust (LP) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) GOLDEN GATE BLVD I-75 SR 29OIL WELL RD CR 846 SR 82 EVERGLADES BLVDSR 29 NCORKSCREW RDIMMOKALEE RD DESOTO BLVD S1ST ST SLAKE TRAFFORD RD MAIN ST W NE W MARKET RD I-75 402 41Miles GIS Mapping: Beth Yang, AICPGrowth Management DepartmentFile: Official Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Map.mxdDate: 01/2022 Okaloacoochee SloughFlowway Stewardship Area(FSA) HSA HSA HSA ACSC OkaloacoocheeHabitatStewardship Area(HSA)ACSC CampKeaisStrandFlowway Stewardship Area(FSA) HSA WRA AVEMARIASRAOI L WE L L GR A D E R D CAMPKEAISRDSSA 11 SSA 16 SSA 5 SSA 3 SSA 4 SSA 12 SSA 6 SSA 15 SSA 9 SSA 1 SSA 2 SSA 15 SSA 14 SSA 13 SSA 7 WRA WRA WRA FSA WRA WRA WRA WRA WRA ACSC ACSC LakeTrafford CR858WRA NORTH CORRIDOR GENERAL LOCATION SOUTH CORRIDOR GENERAL LOCATION R U R A L L A N D S S T E W A R D S H I P A R E A O V E R L A Y M A PRURAL L A N D S S T E W A R D S H I P A R E A O V E R L A Y M A P Note: The official designated titles of SSAs can be found within SSA Credit Agreements. SSA 5A SSA 3A RIVERGRASSVILLAGESRA (Disclaimer: The information provided is to be used for general mapping purposes only. Ground surveying and records search must be used for absolute boundaries/acreages) FSA FSA FSA FSA FSA FSA Florida PantherNational Wildlife Refuge Okaloacoochee SloughState Forest HYDE PARKVILLAGE SRA Legend Stewardship Areas RLSA Program Area Major Roads Area of Critical State Concern 500 Foot Restoration Area Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) Habtitat Stewardship Area (HSA) Water Retention Area (WRA) Open Panther Corridor Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Public Lands Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) BigCypressNationalForest SSA 17 SSA 17BELLMARVILLAGESRA LONGWATERVILLAGESRA AMEN D ED - JAN U ARY 2 5 , 20 07(O rd . N o . 2 0 0 7 -1 8 ) AMEN D ED - SEP T EMB ER 1 3, 2 011(O rd . N o. 2 0 11 -26 )AMEN D ED - JU NE 1 3, 2 01 7(O rd . N o . 2 0 1 7 -2 2 )AMEN D ED - JU LY 13 , 20 21(O rd . N o . 2 0 2 1 -2 8 ) A M E N D E D - O C TO B E R 1 4 , 2 0 0 8(O rd . N o . 2 0 0 8 -5 9 ) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area GMPA Page | 1 GMPA – PL20240004018 Revised: May 31, 2024 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 RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY GMPA – TOWN SIZE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (PL20240004018) PROJECT NARRATIVE, CRITERIA AND CONSISTENCY Details of Request Ave Maria Development, LLLP is submitting this Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) to make text changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay provisions of the Collier County GMP, Section V.F. The amendment proposes to eliminate the maximum 5,000-acre size of a Town Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and to clarify that “Goods and Services” include business and industry uses, including Florida Qualified Target Industries. The amendment includes text changes to Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 4.7.1, Policy 4.7.4 and Attachment C, Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. RLSA Overview Collier County established the incentive based RLSA program as part of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP (Ord. 2002-54, as amended) to assess and address growth pressures in Collier County’s eastern rural and agricultural lands. The RLSA program has the goal of “retaining agricultural activities, directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, enabling the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that employs creative land use planning techniques through the use of established incentives.” The RLSA encompasses approximately 185,000 acres in eastern Collier County. The RLSA program incentivizes the preservation and restoration of environmentally sensitive areas into Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) in exchange for SSA Credits (Credits). These Credits are available to allow higher intensity mixed-use developments, known as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA), in appropriate locations and subject to specific design criteria. SRAs can be developed as Towns, Villages or Compact Rural Developments. The RLSA Overlay Map identifies significant environmental areas as Water Resource Areas (WRA), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA), and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA). Lands not identified as WRA, HSA, FSA 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area GMPA Page | 2 GMPA – PL20240004018 Revised: May 31, 2024 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 are designated as Open Lands and are the appropriate location for new Towns, Villages or Compact Rural Development SRAs. The Open Lands generally consist of predominantly agriculture lands which have been cleared or altered. Additionally, the Open Lands include a 500’ Restoration Area located adjacent to FSAs and two potential Panther Corridor locations on the Overlay Map. The RLSA Overlay Map Areas RLSA Designation Acres Percent of Total WRA 31,100 17.05% HSA 40,000 21.93% FSA 18,200 9.99% Open 93,100 51.04% TOTAL 182,400 100.00% Source: Collier County RLSA Study Phase I Technical Report, 2008 To date, the RLSA has established 18 SSAs protecting over 47,000 acres and there are seven (7) approved and one (1) pending SRAs on approximately 11,000 acres. The most recent amendments to the RLSA program (Ord 2021-28) placed limits on the number of SSA Credits that could be generated and established a maximum of 45,000 acres that can be designated as a SRA. Existing and Pending SRAs SRA Name SRA Type Total Acres Public Benefit Net Acres Ave Maria Town 5,928.00 998.001 4,930.00 Longwater* Village 0 0 Rivergrass Village 997.53 997.53 Hyde Park Village 642.52 642.52 Brightshore Village 681.50 681.50 Bellmar Village 999.74 999.74 Big Cypress Town 1,544.46 1,544.46 Horse Trials** Village 1,217.84 1,217.84 TOTAL 12,011.59 998.00 11,013.59 1 Ave Maria approval excludes Public Benefit Use acreage, including University District, from SRA acreage * The 991.81-acre Longwater Village was incorporated into the Town of Big Cypress ** Under Review/Pending 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area GMPA Page | 3 GMPA – PL20240004018 Revised: May 31, 2024 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 Justification: This amendment seeks to remove the maximum 5,000-acre size of a Town and to provide clarification that “goods and services” required within Town and Village SRAs may include employment centers, such as manufacturing and Florida Qualified Target Industries, and is not limited to retail and office uses. Approval of the GMPA will further the RLSA’s ability to: • create mixed-use, self-sufficient SRAs that utilize shared services, facilities and infrastructure; • further enable economic prosperity through the development of planned land uses and employment centers; and • increase internal capture and reduce trip length and long-distance travel. The RLSA Group 4 Policies pertain to the development of SRAs. SRAs can be in the form of a Town, Village or Compact Rural Development (CRD). Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and Attachment C, RLSA SRA Characteristics outline the minimum standards for each type of SRA. The primary differences are summarized below: SRA Standards: Town Village CRD Size 1,500-5,000 acres 300-1,500 acres 300 acres or less Goods and Services 170 sf per du 53 sf per du 10 sf per du Civic, Gov, Inst 15 sf land area per du 10 sf floor area per du n/a Community Park 200 sf per du n/a n/a Towns, being the largest and most diverse type of SRA, require substantially more “goods and services” than a Village or CRD. Additionally, Towns are required to provide Community Parks within their boundaries. During the recent public hearings for the RLSA restudy and GMP Amendments, the consensus from the public and commissioners was that Towns are preferable to Villages and smaller projects. Towns and larger developments provide greater flexibility and more opportunity for smart growth by creating areas that can create jobs. As noted in Policy 4.2, SRAs can be designated on “privately owned lands within the RLSA…, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a SSA.” The Policy also states that “the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP.” The RLSA program does not include minimum separation between SRAs. Therefore, if an existing Town wanted to expand above the 5,000-acre limit the only recourse would be to establish a separate, adjacent SRA. The following table compares the additional non-residential uses and community park area that is required for an existing Town to add 1,500 acres and 4,000 dwelling units if done as an expanded Town without an acreage cap or by adding an adjacent Village. An expanded Town requires significantly more commercial floor area and community park acreage than if developed as a separate Village. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area GMPA Page | 4 GMPA – PL20240004018 Revised: May 31, 2024 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 Development Example Expanded Town Adjacent Village Size +1,500 acres +1,500 acres Dwelling Units +4,000 dwelling units +4,000 dwelling units Goods and Services +680,000 sf gross floor area +212,000 sf gross floor area Civic, Gov, Inst +1.38-acres +40,000 sf gross floor area Community Park +18.37-acres None Required Removing the maximum size of Towns allow for additional residential units and population within the Town. The resulting increase in population provides a larger consumer base and demand for a variety of goods, services and amenities. This increase in population is attractive to investors and businesses looking for new markets to help meet this demand. As more businesses locate within the Town, they support each other through supply chains and business-to-business services, creating a synergistic environment that fosters further economic growth and job creation. This critical mass is essential for attracting major employers with higher paying wages. Towns with a full array of goods and services, public amenities and employment centers allow residents to meet most of their needs within the Town. This increases the internal capture of the SRA’s anticipated vehicular trips; reducing the number of external trips onto the County roadways and the overall vehicle miles traveled by Town residents. For example, the Town of Ave Maria SRA, which was originally approved in 2005 and later amended in 2020 and 2022, has a significantly higher internal capture. Ave Maria’s higher internal capture rate was based on an impact fee study of the Town Core, prepared by Benesch on February 2022, which suggests an internal capture rate of 89% for the smaller retail/restaurant establishments, 74% for other non- residential land uses and 62% for residential uses. Allowing the additional land to be incorporated into the existing Town SRA boundary, as opposed to a separate Village or CRD, requires more non-residential floor area and employment opportunities, additional community parks and more land area for civic, governmental and institutional uses. The location and distribution of those uses, roads, stormwater and utilities can be better coordinated and planned. Additionally, having a single SRA document allows for easier implementation by staff and developers. The GMPA is consistent with Florida Statutes and the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as provided in the succeeding section. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area GMPA Page | 5 GMPA – PL20240004018 Revised: May 31, 2024 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 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. 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 RLSA Overlay was originally established as part of the Collier County GMP in 2002 and most recently amended in 2021 following extensive surveys and studies. The Collier County RLSA program is recognized by the State of Florida as being found in compliance with FS Section 163.3248 as a statutory rural land stewardship area. The proposed GMPA does not negatively impact the existing RLSA program. The RLSA Overlay Map identifies areas that are suitable to be designated as an SRA and does not require a minimum separation between SRAs. The Collier County RLSA program establishes a maximum of 45,000 acres that can be designated as an SRA, which is not affected by this amendment. The proposed GMPA to eliminate the 5,000 acre maximum Town size and to clarify that “goods and services” include employment centers allows for SRA’s that provide additional non-residential uses and employment opportunities for residents, thereby increasing internal trip capture and reducing overall vehicle miles traveled. Allowing for larger towns, as opposed to adjacent but separate SRA applications, allows for the better coordination of roads, parks, utilities, and stormwater design, as well as a more efficient distribution of residential, goods and services, civic and employment centers. The proposed changes further the goal of establishing SRAs that are self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, and that promote economic sustainability, diversification and job creation. 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. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area GMPA Page | 6 GMPA – PL20240004018 Revised: May 31, 2024 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 c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Response: The proposed GMPA does not change the Future Land Use Map or the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Map. FS Section 163.3248 Rural Land Stewardship Areas (1) Rural land stewardship areas are designed to establish a long-term incentive-based strategy to balance and guide the allocation of land so as to accommodate future land uses in a manner that protects the natural environment, stimulate economic growth and diversification, and encourage the retention of land for agriculture and other traditional rural land uses. … (5) A rural land stewardship area shall be not less than 10,000 acres, shall be located outside of municipalities and established urban service areas, and shall be designated by plan amendment by each local government with jurisdiction over the rural land stewardship area. The plan amendment or amendments designating a rural land stewardship area are subject to review pursuant to s. 163.3184 and shall provide for the following: (a) Criteria for the designation of receiving areas which shall, at a minimum, provide for the following: adequacy of suitable land to accommodate development so as to avoid conflict with significant environmentally sensitive areas, resources, and habitats; compatibility between and transition from higher density uses to lower intensity rural uses; and the establishment of receiving area service boundaries that provide for a transition from receiving areas and other land uses within the rural land stewardship area through limitations on the extension of services. (b) Innovative planning and development strategies to be applied within rural land stewardship areas pursuant to this section. (c) A process for the implementation of innovative planning and development strategies within the rural land stewardship area, including those described in this subsection, which provide for a functional mix of land uses through the adoption by the local government of zoning and land development regulations applicable to the rural land stewardship area. (d) A mix of densities and intensities that would not be characterized as urban sprawl through the use of innovative strategies and creative land use techniques. … (11) It is the intent of the Legislature that the rural land stewardship area located in Collier County, which was established pursuant to the requirements of a final order by the Governor and Cabinet, duly adopted as a growth management plan amendment by Collier County, and found in compliance with this chapter, be recognized as a statutory rural land stewardship area and be afforded the incentives in this section. Response: The Collier County RLSA Overlay has been recognized by the State as a statutory Rural Land Stewardship Area. The proposed text amendments to the County’s RLSA Overlay are consistent with the overall intent of Section 163.3248. The proposed amendments seek to remove the maximum size for SRA’s 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area GMPA Page | 7 GMPA – PL20240004018 Revised: May 31, 2024 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 designated as Towns and to provide clarifying language that minimum “Goods and Services” include business and industry uses that further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification, and job creation, including Florida Qualified Industries. The proposed amendment does not make changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Map, including areas designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, or Open Land. Per the County RLSAO, open lands may be designated as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) as either Towns, Villages or Compact Rural Developments. The amendment does not affect where SRAs can be located and the RLSAO limits the total acreage that can be designated as an SRA at 45,000-acres. 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 RLSA program has been found to promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitats, while protecting private property rights and ensuring compatibility of land uses. The proposed amendment to remove the maximum size of a Town SRA and to clarify that “goods and services” includes employment centers, including Florida Qualified Target Industries, does not conflict with this Objective. 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. Response: The RLSA program already allows for the establishment or designation of SRAs within areas not classified as WRAs, HSAs, or FSAs. These Open Lands have been deemed suitable for urban intensity uses in the form of SRAs. The proposed amendment does not alter where SRAs can be located. The GMPA only clarifies what can be counted toward required “Goods and Services” and allows for Town SRAs that exceed 5,000 acres without affecting the maximum 45,000 acres of SRAs within the RLSA. 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. 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, 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area GMPA Page | 8 GMPA – PL20240004018 Revised: May 31, 2024 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 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: The RLSA program designates environmentally sensitive areas as WRAs, HSAs and FSAs and prohibits new Towns, Villages and Compact Rural Developments from these areas. The development of an SRA can only be accomplished through the use of SSA Credits, which are created through the preservation and potential restoration of environmentally sensitive lands. Additionally, any proposed SRA must include a Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) assessment to verify that land is appropriate for more intensive development and limits what can occur on properties that score a 1.2 or higher. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: CCPC Backup Materials PL2024-4018 GMPA (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN G Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:q) A.M. on SePtember m' N24' in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floo( Collier Government Cenler, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL to consider: A BESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PBOPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, OBDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERI.AY AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVEBI-AY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, TO ELIMINATE THE CAP ON THE SIZE OF A TOWN ANO INCLUDE OUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRIES AS A GOODS AND SERVICES USE; AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENOMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMEBCE. 1PL2024O0040r 8I All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies ofthe proposed Resolution will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office, fourth floo( Collier County Government Cente( 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401, Naples, FL 34.1 12, one (1) week prior to the scheduled healing' Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division, prior to SePtember 20,2024. As part ol an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunityto provide public comments remotely, as wellas in person, during this proceeding. lndividuals who would like to participate remotety should register through the link provided within the specific evenumeeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercounM. gov/our-county/visilors/calendar-of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notlce. lndividuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Ray Bellows at 252-2463 or email to Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Any person who decides to appeal any decision orthe Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therelore, may need to ensure that a verbalim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. lf you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer, Chairman 2 !I FI(n Ili E? ato : U c c -l ,o N 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Legal Ad CCPC 8-30-24 NDN (29774 : PL20240004018 Rural Land Stewardship Area GMPA) 09/20/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Doc ID: 29749 Item Summary: PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA) - 3880 Tollgate Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard, north of Beck Boulevard - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Specifically amending The Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map Series to add the Tollgate Housing Parcel to property designated as Urban, Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Activity Center #9 to allow construction of 110 multi-family rental units with affordable housing on 5 acres of land also known as parcel 11 of the commercial areas, “A” parcels, on the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan, As an alternative to commercial uses, and furthermore directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce. The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, North of Beck Boulevard at 3880 Tollgate Boulevard in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Parker Klopf, Planner III) (Companion Item PUDA PL20230007874, Tollgate Commercial Center and DOA PL20230007875, Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI) Meeting Date: 09/20/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Parker Kloph 08/27/2024 8:54 AM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 08/27/2024 8:54 AM Approved By: Review: Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/05/2024 4:26 PM Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch GMD Approver Completed 09/09/2024 2:45 PM Unknown Jaime Cook GMCDD Reviewer Completed 09/09/2024 3:39 PM Zoning James Sabo Review Item Completed 09/10/2024 9:50 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Completed 09/10/2024 10:05 AM Growth Management Community Development Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 09/13/2024 4:03 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 09/20/2024 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 254 1 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20230007876/SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (Companion to PUDZ- PL20230007874) ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) _____________________________________________________________________________________ AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich Jem Frantz, AICP Coleman, Yovanovich, & Koester RVI Planning + Landscape Arch. 4001 Tamiami Trail N. #300 28100 Bonita Grande Dr. #305 Naples, Florida 34103 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Applicant: K2 Housing Naples, LLC 3880 Tollgate Blvd. Naples, FL 34114 Owner: K2 Housing Naples, LLC 3880 Tollgate Blvd. Naples, FL 34114 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises ±5 acres on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR 951), north of Beck Blvd., with direct access to Tollgate Blvd. within Activity Center #9 in section 35, Township 49, Range 26. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Staff report-toll-gate (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 2 9.A.2.aPacket Pg. 256Attachment: Staff report-toll-gate (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 3 REQUESTED ACTION/ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant proposes a small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to establish the ±5 Tollgate Housing Parcel within the existing Interchange Activity Center of the Urban Commercial District to allow residential development at a maximum density of 22 units an acre. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Subject Property: The subject site is ±5-acres located on the east side of Collier Blvd, north of Beck Boulevard, with direct access to Tollgate Boulevard within Activity Center #9 in section 35, Township, 49, Range 26. According to the official Future Land Use map, the site is located within the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict of the Urban Commercial District of the Future Land Use Element. The Future Land Use designation 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. Surrounding Lands: North: Future Land Use Designation; Interchange Activity Center subdistrict. Zoned; Whitelake Industrial Corp Park PUD/ I-75 ROW Land Use; I-75 ROW. East: Future Land Use Designation; Interchange Activity Center subdistrict. Zoned; Tollgate PUD. Land Use; Outdoor Storage. South: Future Land Use Designation; Interchange Activity Center subdistrict. Zoned; Tollgate PUD. Land Use: Self Storage. West: Future Land Use Designation; Interchange Activity Center subdistrict. Zoned, Tollgate PUD. Land Use; Hotel. In summary, the existing and planned land uses in the larger surrounding area are transient lodging, commercial, and industrial. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Future Land Use Map designates the property as part of the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, which 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 as well as allow residential development within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Centers at a density up to twenty-five (25) units per gross acre in accordance with the standards of the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the Future Land Use Element. According to the current zoning map the subject site is part of the Tollgate PUD and was originally developed a hotel/motel for the traveling public in 1989-90. In 2022, the applicant purchased the property from the previous owners and intends to convert the existing hotel into a residential multi-family development. The proposed GMP amendment is intended to allow for the reuse of the existing hotel and transition the project to a 110-unit multi-family development with alterations to the existing structures, which will serve to reinvigorate and reactivate the subject property and allow for the rapid absorption of new residential units into the housing market. Accordingly, the Applicant has already made a substantial investment to serve Collier’s residents through its coordination of multiple leases with important local employers for its employees and through the Applicant’s dedicated efforts during Collier’s Hurricane Ian recovery. As a conversion from hotel units, each dwelling unit will be limited to a minimum of 250 square feet, and each unit will be limited to two occupants. Furthermore, elements of the Applicant’s housing model, such as reusing the existing building, limiting the sizes of the units, coordinating leases directly with employers, and providing all rooms fully furnished, all help to make rental prices attainable for employees. As provided in the proposed subdistrict language, only 25 of the 110 dwelling units, or (22.7%) will be designated as “set aside units.” Of the 25 set aside units 12 will be rented to those making up to 80% of the 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Staff report-toll-gate (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 4 median income and 13 units will be rented to those making up to 100% of the median income. These commitments fall short of what is allowed within the existing Mixed Use Activity Center subdistrict, which would allow a density of up to 25 units an acre subject to the standards of the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the Future Land Use Element. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has enacted policy that requires any request for density above the maximum allowed or when amending the future land use map for residential development that falls short of the current affordable housing bonus standards to require a minimum of 30% of units be restricted to affordable levels. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed subdistrict should increase the commitment from 22.7% to at least 30% or more of the residential units to be set aside as affordable consistent with the previously mentioned Board of County Commissioner policy or comply with the standards of the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable. 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. 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, as indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. 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: 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Staff report-toll-gate (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 5 a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. The petitioner must provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan Amendment. For this petition, the 2022 Urban Land Institute Affordable report that the conversion of hotel units into residential units is at the forefront of the attempt to address multi-family housing shortages across the nation. 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 5± 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 Interchange Activity Center 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.] 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Staff report-toll-gate (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 6 (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 June 26, 2024, at Sheperd of the Glades Church, Hanson Hall, 6020 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Naples, FL 34113. The meeting was not attended by any members of the public. See Attachment C for the NIM documentation. [synopsis prepared by Parker Klopf, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning Division] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: (FINDINGS PER 163.3177(6)(A)2 A.—J.) • The Tollgate Housing Parcel proposes a Growth Management Plan Amendment to the current Interchange Activity Center subdistrict to allow a multi-family development. • Multi-family residential development is comparable and compatible with surrounding densities. • County water and wastewater service is not available to the site. • Transportation system impacts have not been identified with this petition. Environmental Findings: The subject property is 5 acres. The acreage of native vegetation on-site was field verified by staff during the review of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the project. The existing native vegetation will be maintained as previously approved. The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Native vegetation on-site will be retained in accordance with the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 and section 3.05.07 of the LDC. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this Staff Report on August 26, 2024. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot recommend approval of the subdistrict as proposed and recommends an increase of the commitment from 22.7% to 30% of the residential units to be set aside as affordable consistent with previous Board of County Commissioner policy and based on those changes, recommends the Collier County Planning Commission to approve for adoption and transmittal petition PL20230007876 to the Florida Department of Commerce and other statutorily required review agencies. NOTE: This petition has been tentatively scheduled for the November 12, 2024, BCC meeting. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Staff report-toll-gate (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) ORDINANCE NO.2O2.I- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES TO ADD THE TOLLGATE HOUSING PARCEL TO PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS URBAN, URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER SUBDISTRICT, ACTIVITY CENTER#9 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF IIO MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON 5 ACRES OF LAND ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT II OF THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, *A" PARCELS, ON THE TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL USES, AND FURTIIERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DIPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULVEARD, NORTH OF BECK BOULEVARD AT 3880 TOLLGATE BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLTER COUNTY, FLORIDA (pL20230007876) WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Community Planning Act, formerly the Florida Local Govemment 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 201 1 provides authority for local govemments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, K2 Housing Naples, LLC requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map Series; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(l), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small-Scale Amendment: and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concem or a rural area of opportunity; and [24-CMP{12 t0/t 887649/l ]52 PL20230007 876 Toll Gate SSCMPA 8t26t24 I of 3 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Ordinance - 082624 initialed (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) 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 conceming the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Grorth Management Plan on 2024: and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements ofthe law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COLINTY. FLORIDA that: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map Series attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted in accordance wilh Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and shall be transmitted to the Florida Depanment of Economic Opportunity. SECTION TWO: TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Board of County Commissioners directs transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce. SECTIONTHREE: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any cou( of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portion. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local govemment that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commenced before it has become effective. [24-CMP-0 12 I 0/ I 88 76.19/ I ]52 PL2023000787 6 Toll Gate SSGMPA 8n6124 2 of 3 SECTION ONE: SECTIONFOUR: EFFECTIVEDATE. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Ordinance - 082624 initialed (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this _ day of _2024. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attomey Attachment: Exhibit A - Text and Parcel Map [24-CMP4l2l0/18t7649/l]s2 P120230007876 Toll Gate SSGMPA 8/26D4 BOARD OF COLINTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Chris Halt. Chairman 3 of 3 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Ordinance - 082624 initialed (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Exhibit A COLLIER COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT I. Urban Designation C. Urban – Commercial District 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict: Interchange Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map at three of the County’s four Interstate 75 interchanges and include numbers 4, 9 and 10; there is no Activity Center at the new I-75/Golden Gate Parkway interchange. The boundaries of these Interchange Activity Centers have been specifically defined on the maps located at the end of this Section as part of the Future Land Use Map Series. Any changes to the boundaries of these Interchange Activity Centers shall require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map Series. Interchange Activity Centers #4 (I-75 at Immokalee Road) and #10 (I-75 at Pine Ridge Road) allow for the same mixture of land uses as allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers; additionally, industrial uses, as identified below, are allowed in the southwest and southeast quadrants of Interchange Activity Center #4. No industrial uses shall be allowed in Interchange Activity Center #10. The actual mix of uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. All new projects within Activity Center #9 are encouraged to have a unified plan of development in the form of a Planned Unit Development. However, the 3.7-acre property formerly utilized by the Florida Highway Patrol Headquarters located east of the Tollgate PUD/DRI may be split into two (2) parcels and one of the parcels being 3.4 acres will be permitted to utilize conventional zoning. The remainder 0.26-acre parcel is excluded from Interchange Activity Center #9. The mixture of uses allowed in Interchange Activity Center #9 shall include all land uses allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers; additionally, industrial uses shall be allowed in the northeast and southeast quadrants of I - 75 and Collier Boulevard, and in the southwest quadrant of Collier and Davis Boulevards. The actual mix of uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. For residential-only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be allowed. Development located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center in all subdistrict may be permitted up to 25 units per gross acre per standards of the Mixed- Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict, except as allowed by the Mixed - Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. For a residential -only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. Mixed-use developments‒whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building‒are allowed and encouraged within Interchange Activity Centers. Such mixed -use projects are intended to be developed at a humanscale, pedestrian -oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects–whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre. Development located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center in all subdistrict may be permitted up to twenty -five (25) units per gross acre per standards of the mixed -Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Page 1 of 4 8-26-24 PL20230007876 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Ordinance - 082624 initialed (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project shall not be distributed outside of the Activity Center. Based on the unique location and function of Interchange Activity Centers, some Industrial land uses‒those that serve regional markets and derive specific benefit when located in the Interchange Activity Centers‒shall be allowed in the Activity Center quadrants previously identified. These uses shall be limited to: manufacturing, warehousing, storage, and distribution. During the rezone process, each such use shall be reviewed to determine if it will be compatible with existing and approved land uses. The following conditions shall be required to ensure compatibility of Industrial land uses with other land uses allowed in the Interchange Activity Centers; to maintain the appearance of these Interchange Activity Centers as gateways to the community; and to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, glare or fumes to the adjacent property owners. The Planned Unit Development and/or rezoning ordinance shall contain specific language regarding the permitted Industrial land uses, compatibility requirements, and development standards consistent with the following conditions. Site-specific development details will be reviewed during the Site Development Plan review process. a. Landscaping, buffering and/or berming shall be installed along the Interstate; b. Fencing shall be wooden or masonry; c. Wholesale and storage uses shall not be permitted immediately adjacent to the right-ofway of the Interstate; d. Central water and sewage systems shall be required; e. Ingress and egress shall be consistent with State Access Management Plans, as applicable; f. No direct access to the Interstate right-of-way shall be permitted; g. Joint access and frontage roads shall be established when frontage is not adequate to meet the access spacing requirements of the Access Control Policy, Activity Center Access Management Plan provisions, or State Access Management Plans, as applicable; h. Access points and median openings shall be designed to provide adequate turning radii to accommodate truck traffic and to minimize the need for U-turn movements; i. The developer shall be responsible to provide all necessary traffic improvements to include traffic signals, turn lanes, deceleration lanes, and other improvements deemed necessary‒as determined through the rezoning process; and, j. A maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the designated Industrial land uses component of the projects shall be established at 0.45. Tollgate Housing Parcel The Tollgate Housing Parcel comprises 5+/- acres on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), north of Beck Boulevard with direct access to Tollgate Boulevard within Activity Center #9 in Section 35, Township 49, Range 26. In addition to the uses, densities, and intensities allowed in Activity Center #9, the Tollgate Housing Parcel is intended to allow multi-family dwelling units to promote the integration of housing in proximity to transit, employment centers, and public infrastructure, which will serve to reduce existing trip lengths. The Tollgate Housing Parcel is identified in the Activity Cener Subdistrict Map included as Part of the FLUM and Map Series for Activity Center #9, and is within the existing Tollgate Commercial Center PUD. The Development of the Tollgate Housing Parcel shall be governed by the following criteria: a. Rezoning is required to be in the form of an amendment to the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD. b. Residential uses are allowed at a maximum density of 22 dwelling units per acre calculated based upon the Page 2 of 4 8-26-24 PL20230007876 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Ordinance - 082624 initialed (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) entire acreage of the Tollgate Housing Parcel, not to exceed 110 dwelling units, and related amenities. 1. Twenty-five (25) units (collectively referred to as “Set Aside Units”) shall be restricted as follows: a) Twelve (12) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. b) Thirteen (13) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. 2. There will be no income restrictions on the remaining units within the Tollgate Housing Parcel identified on FLUE Activity Center Map #9. However, the remaining units will be rent restricted at a rent equal to or less than rents permitted for households whose incomes are up to and including 120% of the AMI for Collier County. These rent restrictions will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Rent limits may be adjusted annually based on the rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 3. The Set Aside Units shall be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first Set Aside Unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. 4. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report, the developer will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of the income restricted units. For rent restricted units, rent rolls and rental data will be provided in a format approved by Collier County Community and Human Services Division. Developer agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. c. All dwellings will be rental units. d. The Density Rating System is not applicable to the Tollgate Housing Parcel. Page 3 of 4 8-26-24 PL20230007876 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Ordinance - 082624 initialed (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) CITY GATE WHITELAKEINDUSTRIALCORP. PARK FOREST GLENNOF NAPLES TOLLPLAZA RVPARK COLLIER BLVD.MIXED USECOMM. CNTR. GOLDEN GATECOMMERCE PARK TOLLGATE EASTTOLLPLAZA GALLMANOLDSDEALERSHIP I-75/ALLIGATORALLEY WOODSIDELANES I-75/COLLIERBLVD COMMERECENTER WESTPORTCOMMERCECENTER CEDARHAMMOCK G& C CLUB EAST GATEWAY TRIADMAC MAGNOLIA POND SADDLEBROOKVILLAGESHERWOOD PARK VINCENT ACRES RESOURCERECOVERYBUSINESS PARK E A PUD A RMF-6 RMF-12(7) A A PUD RMF-12(8.9) PUD ICPUD C-4 RMF-12(7) PUD PUD PUD I PUD PUD A RSF-3 PUD C-4 MPUD RPUDRPUDPUDCPUD PUD RSF-4 P PUDPUD A MPUD A PUD PUD PUD RMF-6 MPUD PUD MPUD RPUDC-3 RMF-12(10) IPUD A C-3 £PREPARED BY: GIS/CAD MAPPING SECTIONGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTFILE: TOLLGATE HOUSING SUBDISTRICT AC9 MAP DRAFT.MXDDate: 08/22/2024 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF-3 EXISTING ZONING (NOTE: PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY;THE OFFICIAL SOURCE OF ZONING INFORMATIONIS THE ZONING ATLAS SET, WHICH IS PART OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.ORDINANCE NO. 04-41, AS AMENDED) DEVELOPED LAND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AMENDED - JUNE 13, 2017(Ord. No. 2017-22) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 13, 2011(Ord. No. 2011-26) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 22, 2020(Ord. No. 2020-25) AMENDED - APRIL 25, 2023(Ord. No. 2023-20) EXHIBIT "A" PETITION PL20230007876 ACTIVITY CENTER #9 C.R. 951 - INTERSTATE 75 Collier County, Florida TOLLGATE HOUSING PARCEL AMENDED - XXXX(Ord. No. XXX) DRAFT SUBJECT SITE Page 4 of 4 8-26-24 PL20230007876 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 267 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Hotel-to-Housing Conversions Proliferate - Urban Land Magazine (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Housing Parcel Growth Management Plan Amendment Application (GMPA) August 19, 2024 PREPARED FOR: K2 Housing Naples, LLC SUBMITTED TO: Collier County, Zoning Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Table of Contents Contents Completed Application Request Narrative Exhibit I.D – Professional Consultants Exhibit II.D – Property Ownership Disclosure Exhibit III.B – Addressing Checklist Exhibit III.J – Surrounding Land Use Map Exhibit IV.B – Proposed GMPA Strikethrough/Underline Exhibit V.A.1 – Location Map Exhibit V.A.2 – Property Aerial Exhibit V.B.1 – Existing Future Land Use Map Exhibit V.B.2 - Proposed Future Land Use Map Exhibit V.D.1 – Sprawl Analysis Exhibit V.E.1 & 3 – Public Facilities Analysis Exhibit V.E.2 – Infrastructure Map Exhibit V.G.1 – Warranty Deed Exhibit V.G.2 – Letter of Authorization Affidavit of Authorization TIS School Impact Analysis Pre-Application Meeting Notes Expedited Review Form 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment COMPLETED APPLICATION 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 1 APPLICATION NUMBER: _PL20230007876____ DATE RECEIVED: ______________________________ PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE: _May 16, 2023_______________________________________________ This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Growth Management Department 239-252- 2400, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. The application is to be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline. The applicant will be notified , in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 12-234. If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant: _K2 Housing Naples, LLC________________________________________ Company: _Same__________________________________________________________________ Address: __3880 Tollgate Blvd.____________________________________________________ City: __Naples______________________ State: _FL__________________ Zip Code: _34114____ Phone Number: _(305) 479-6654_______ Fax Number: ________________________________ Email Address: _akorge@k2developers.com_______________________ B. Name of Agent* ___Jem Frantz, AICP & Richard Yovanovich, Esq._________________ • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company: RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture & Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address: _28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 City: Bonita Springs State: FL Zip Code: 34135 Phone Number: (239) 319-0026_____ Fax Number: ___________________________ Email Address: _jfrantz@rviplanning.com & ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com_ C. Name of Owner (s) of Record: __Same as Applicant_________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________________ City: ___________________________ State: ___________________ Zip Code: ________ Phone Number: _______________________ Fax Number: ______________________________ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 2 Email Address: ____________________________ D. Name, Company, Address and Qualifications of all consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application, as well as Qualifications of the Agent identified above. See Exhibit I.D – Professional Consultants II. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 3 __________________________________________ _________________________ D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership See Exhibit II.D - Property Ownership Disclosure _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ Date of Contract: __________________ F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ G. Date subject property acquired (x) leased ( ):09/15/2022 Term of lease: ______yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: ______________ and date option terminates: ______________, or anticipated closing: _______________________. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 4 NOTE: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. PARCEL I.D. NUMBER: _ 76885005005 and 7688500510 _____________________________ B. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: _See Exhibit III.B ____________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ C. GENERAL LOCATION: _ 3880 Tollgate Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 _________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ D. Section: __35___ Township: __49___ Range: _26_____ E. PLANNING COMMUNITY: _Rural Estates____________ F. TAZ: _2842_____________________ G. SIZE IN ACRES: __5± acres________________________ H. ZONING: _PUD_____________ I. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S): _Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict___________ J. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN: _Mixed-Use. See Exhibit III.J – Surrounding Land Use Map_ ___________________________________________________________________________________ IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: ______ Housing Element ______ Recreation/Open Space ______ Traffic Circulation Sub-Element ______ Mass Transit Sub-Element ______ Aviation Sub-Element ______ Potable Water Sub-Element ______ Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element ______ NGWAR Sub-Element ______ Solid Waste Sub-Element ______ Drainage Sub-Element ______ Capital Improvement Element ______ CCME Element __x___ Future Land Use Element ______ Golden Gate Master Plan ______ Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S): __76_____________OF THE: _Future Land Use ________ELEMENT 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 5 AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike-through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: ________See Exhibit IV.B GMPA Strikethrough-Underline____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM ___Interchange Activity Center_ TO _Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict_______________________________________________ D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) __N/A___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: __ ______________________________________ __ Creation of new “Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict” in Future Land Use Map ____________ __________________________________________________________________________________ V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I”=400’. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Exhibit V.A.1 Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI’s, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Exhibit V.A.2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Exhibit III.J & Project Narrative Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION Exhibit V.B.1 & 2 Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL Waived Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN “A” ABOVE. Waived Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 6 (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.) Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference , F.A.C. and Collier County’s Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1. INSERT “Y” FOR YES OR “N” FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: __N_______ Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference , F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. __Y_______ Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S.? (Reference , F.A.C.) __N_______ Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S.? Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. _Y_______ Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference , F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Exhibit V.E.1 & 3 Potable Water Exhibit V.E.1 & 3 Sanitary Sewer TIS Waiver Request Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ Exhibit V.E.1.a Drainage Exhibit V.E.1.a Solid Waste Exhibit V.E.1.a Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 7 (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. Exhibit V.E.2 Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. Exhibit V.E.1 & 3 Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: _N/A Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). _N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) _N/A Coastal High Hazard Area, if applicable _N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION _____ $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) __x__ $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small-Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) Exhibit V.G.1 Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Exhibit V.G.2 Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) * If you have held a pre-application meeting within 9 months prior to submitted date and paid the pre-application fee of $500.00 at the meeting, deduct that amount from the above application fee amount when submitting your application. All pre-application fees are included in the total application submittal fee if petition submitted within 9 months of pre-application meeting date. Otherwise the overage will be applied to future proportionate share advertising costs. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1”=400’ or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. *All attachments should be consistently referenced as attachments or exhibits, and should be labelled to correlate to the application form, e.g. “Exhibit I.D.” 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 8 * Planning Community, TAZ map, Traffic Analysis Zone map, Zoning maps, and Future Land Use Maps. Some maps are available on the Zoning Division website depicting information herein: Zoning Services Section: _________________ Comprehensive Planning Section: _______________________ THIS HAS CHANGED SINCE DCA BECAME DEO. SEE GMP PAEG 2011 UPDATES: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/zoning-services- section/land-use-commission-district-maps REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment REQUEST NARRATIVE 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Page 1 Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Project Narrative and Justification The Property is located in an area of existing and planned urban development within the County’s Urban-designated area and within the Mixed Use Activity Center future land use category (Activity Center #9). The subject property is located within the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD, established by Ordinance 92-10 and which has been amended several times by Ordinances 93-91, 2015-49, and 2017-15. The proposed amendment is limited to the area identified as Parcel 11 within the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD. I. Request K2 Housing Naples, LLC (“Applicant”), is requesting an amendment to the Growth Management Plan to facilitate the reuse of the existing Super 8 Hotel into a multifamily development aimed at providing affordable workforce housing to essential workers in Collier County. The change will amend the Interchange Activity Center #9 Subdistrict to allow 110 multifamily residential dwellings on the properties identified as Parcel 11 in the PUD only. Companion DRI and PUD amendments are also proposed to implement this change. As demonstrated in the companion PUD request, one deviation from landscaping requirements is proposed to provide flexibility in the reuse of the property and to address existing conditions and constraints on the property. The 168 existing parking spaces exceed the required minimum parking spaces for multifamily efficiency units in LDC section 4.05.04. (110 units x 0.5 spaces = 55 spaces required). No other changes to the approved commercial uses, development standards or other development tracts within the companion PUD are included in this request. The proposed GMP amendment will allow for the reuse of the existing hotel and transition the project to a 110-unit multifamily development with alterations to the existing structures which will serve to reinvigorate and reactivate the subject property and allow for the rapid absorption of new residential units into the housing market. Accordingly, the proposed reuse comes and corresponding significant additional financial investment by the applicant will be made after the Applicant has already made a substantial investment to serve Collier’s residents through its coordination of multiple leases with important local employers for its employees and through the Applicant’s dedicated efforts during Collier’s Hurricane Ian recovery as described further in the next section. The proposed amendment is limited to creating the “Tollgate Housing Parcel,” within the Activity Center #9 subdistrict in the Future Land Use Map. The following data and analysis support approval of the proposed GMP Amendment and identifies the request’s appropriateness in relation to the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies in the GMP and the requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Additional justification, data, and analysis is provided in the attached exhibits. II. Background Information In 1992, the Property was rezoned from PUD to the “Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,” allowing for commercial and light industrial uses on approximately 100+/- acres in three phases. Since that time, the PUD has been amended several times, most recently by Ordinance 2017-15. The subject property is located in Interchange Activity Center #9 in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan for Collier County. The Interchange Activity Center includes a 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Project Narrative and Justification Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 2 of 6 concentration of commercial, industrial, residential, and mixed use developments. The 5-acre subject property operated as a 104-room hotel until it was purchased by the Applicant in 2022. The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the GMP to facilitate the adaptive reuse of the existing Super 8 Hotel into a multifamily development to allow for permanent residences within the existing building. Companion changes to the DRI and PUD will also limit the development to 110 multifamily residential dwellings on Parcel 11 only. Prior to this request, the Applicant purchased the property only eight days before Hurricane Ian devastated the County in September of 2022. Despite the Applicant’s original business plan to re- open the hotel a couple of months later in November of 2022, given the devastation caused by the hurricane, the Applicant spurred into action and spent significant resources to immediately make temporary living spaces for Collier residents who were displaced by Hurricane Ian and to first responders – these groups included Naples Community Hospital staff, and other essential workers from Moorings Park employees and local small business workers, hospitality workers and disaster recovery construction workers. Since that time, the Applicant has continued to work with prominent local employers to provide temporary housing to their employees. The need for this housing has been tested through this temporary housing arrangement, which has remained at, or nearly, 100% occupied. Transitioning to permanent multifamily dwellings will further improve and formalize a housing opportunity that has already proven successful and demonstrates a long-term commitment to Collier County’s future. The Applicant’s housing model has been coordinated through lease agreements with local employers, who are then able to provide housing directly to their employees. As a conversion from hotel units, each dwelling unit will be limited to a minimum of 250 square feet and each unit is limited to two occupants. Furthermore, elements of the Applicant’s housing model, such as, reusing the existing building, limiting the sizes of the units, coordinating leases directly with employers, and providing all rooms fully furnished, all help to make rental prices attainable for employees. Additionally, the proposed GMP amendment and Rezone include commitments to provide affordable housing through income and rent limits. The Applicant’s housing model has been tested at the subject property and throughout the country. The Applicant’s housing model has also been utilized successfully in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, where the Applicant similarly invested significant resources to convert 104 temporary rooms at the Steamboat Hotel and Steamboat Mountain Lodge to permanent workforce multifamily dwellings for local employers and its employees. Additionally, The Urban Land Institute has reported in 2022, that this housing model is at the forefront of the attempt to address multifamily housing shortages across the nation (See https://urbanland.uli.org/planning-design/hotel-to-housing-conversions-proliferate/). The transition from hotel to multifamily units represents an innovative, but tested, approach to providing housing that also adds to Collier County’s housing diversity. The proposed amendment will allow for the reuse of the existing hotel and transition the project to a 110-unit multifamily development which will allow for residents to become permanent rather than temporary, and allowing for the rapid absorption of a much-needed workforce housing solution into the market. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Project Narrative and Justification Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 3 of 6 Surrounding Land Use Pattern The surrounding development pattern consists of a mix of commercial, and business park uses, as further described below: Future Land Use Zoning Current Land Use North ROW (I-75) I-75 I-75 South Interchange Activity Center Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) Self Storage (outdoor) East Interchange Activity Center Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) FPL Easement; Parking Lot West Interchange Activity Center Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) Comfort Inn Hotel III. Justification of Proposed Amendment As stated in the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict in the GMP, “The mixture of uses allowed in Interchange Activity Center #9 shall include all land uses allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers; additionally, industrial uses shall be allowed in the northeast and southeast quadrants of I-75 and Collier Boulevard.” The proposed amendment is in direct compliance with the intent of this section to provide a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The amendment provides for residential development near to commercial uses, thereby reducing vehicular trips and providing a bona fide mix of uses in an urbanized area and supports diverse housing options. The amendment is limited to allowing for the reuse of an existing hotel and does not require significant redevelopment of the site, nor are residential uses anticipated in other areas of the PUD. The requested amendment directly facilitates adaptive re-use opportunities in an established activity center within the Urban-designated area, and locates residents in walking distance to goods, services and employment. As detailed in the enclosed Ch. 163 Sprawl Analysis, the amendment directly supports sound planning principles, including the integration of residential and non- residential land uses. The property’s location within an established activity center, with significant employment uses nearby makes it an ideal area to accommodate residential uses. The site is not located adjacent to established residential communities that would result in compatibility concerns with neighboring developments. Maximum density within Interchange Activity Centers which are not within the Urban Residential Fringe is 16 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for up to 80 units on the 5± acre Property. The proposed amendment will allow for the reuse of existing hotel rooms to create 110 multifamily units, for a gross project density of 22 dwelling units per acre. This increase directly addresses the identified demand for diversified housing to accommodate the County’s existing residents and projected population growth and to the need for workforce housing opportunities to serve a growing diverse employment base throughout the County. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Project Narrative and Justification Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 4 of 6 The density proposed is appropriate for the location considering the adjacent densities and intensities as noted above; the existing and available public infrastructure in the immediate area; the lack of environmentally sensitive lands and natural resources on the site; and the demand for higher- density, affordable workforce housing. Growth Management Plan Consistency The proposed changes maintain the project’s consistency with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. More specifically, the following policies in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) FLUE Policy 5.5: “Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County’s Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services.” The proposed development will reuse an existing building within the urban area rather than relocating to undeveloped, non-urban areas of the Future Land Use Map. As a reuse project, the request establishes a creative land use planning technique and an innovative approach to development that will increase the diversity of housing types in Collier County. Although the request does not create an innovative approach to development within the Agricultural/Rural designated area, the reuse of existing urban areas in new and creative also has the effect of reducing development pressures in more rural areas of the County, thereby supporting this policy. 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 proposed change maintains compatibility with the surrounding land uses by reusing a building previously used for temporary lodging. Transitioning the property from a hotel to multifamily dwellings will reduce traffic impacts associated with the PUD. The proposed change is complementary to surrounding land uses as it provides affordable workforce housing in proximity to goods, services, and employment areas. 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 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 request supports this policy by reusing existing urban areas rather than locating the development in undeveloped areas. The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD is currently served by existing public facilities and services and the request does not require extension of urban services to new areas. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Project Narrative and Justification Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 5 of 6 FLUE Policy 7.1: “The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code.” The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD/DRI includes established connection points to Beck Blvd. and the proposed change will maintain those connections. The subject property will be accessed by Beck Blvd. via Tollgate Blvd. and there are no additional connections proposed. FLUE Policy 7.2: “The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.” The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD/DRI includes several public roads throughout and adjacent to the development which provide access to other areas of the PUD. This application does not propose any change to the road layout. FLUE Policy 7.4: “The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.” This application is consistent with this policy as it does not include any changes to the previously approved uses, intensity, or open space. Existing sidewalk facilities within the Tollgate PUD provide for walkability and connect to nearby commercial areas. FLUE Policy 7.5: “The County shall encourage mixed-use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or abutting commercial development. This Policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific Subdistricts in this Growth Management Plan.” The request supports this policy to encourage mixed-use development through the addition of residential uses abutting commercial development. The companion GMP amendment proposes to amend the Interchange Activity Center #9 subdistrict to limit the residential density on this parcel. CCME Objective 6.1: “Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. (The Policies under this Objective apply to all of Collier County except for that portion of the County which is identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.)” This application is limited to the reuse of an existing, developed, hotel site. No changes are proposed to previously approved preservation requirements. Established preserves within the PUD are demonstrated on the Master Concept Plan. 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.)” 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Project Narrative and Justification Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 6 of 6 This application is consistent with this policy as it is not located within, nor does it propose impacts to, listed animal species and their habitats. The existing building and paved areas are not proposed to be changed, and this application only facilitates the reuse of the property for multifamily dwellings. Housing Element Goal 1: TO CREATE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF DECENT, SAFE, SANITARY, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY. This application is consistent with this goal as it provides 110 new decent, safe, sanitary and reasonably priced housing units to be rented to employers and employees for local businesses to attract and retain employees. As an adaptive reuse project, the application provides the additional benefit of locating these new units in close proximity to employment uses. Additionally, the proposed GMP amendment and Rezone include commitments to provide affordable housing through income and rent limits. IV. Conclusion As demonstrated above and through other application documents, the proposed amendment will further several county goals identified in the Growth Management Plan: • Provide a diversity of housing options, including multifamily dwellings and workforce housing, to address gaps in the existing housing diversity; • Efficiently use the County’s investment in public infrastructure by locating intensive land uses in urban-designated areas of the County where adequate and available public facilities and infrastructure exist; • Uphold the intent of the Urban Commercial Subdistrict and the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict by providing a mix of land uses, including a variety of residential uses. In conclusion, this amendment specifically addresses all aspects of the County’s vision for clustered, compact development and the creation of walkable, mixed-use development within Interchange Activity Centers. The amendment provides for diverse and affordable housing types near existing goods, services and employment. For these reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests approval of the GMP amendment and allow for the reuse of the existing hotel as multifamily dwelling units as requested. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT I.D – PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Page 1 Tollgate Housing Subdistrict GMPA Exhibit I.D – Professional Consultants Planning Jem Frantz, AICP RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 (239) 319-0026 (239) 357-9580 Land Use Attorney Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 (239) 435-3535 (239) 435-1218 fax ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Architect Art Castellanos, AIA Castellanos + Tramonte Architects 1625 SE 46th St., #2A Cape Coral, FL 33904 (239) 549-0997 artthearchitect@msn.com Corporate Counsel Duane Morris, LLP Robert Montejo 901 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 700 East Washington, DC 20001 (202) 776-7827 remontejo@duanemorris.com Brad Molotsky 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (856) 874-4243 bamolotsky@duanemorris.com 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT II.D – PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership K2 Housing Naples LLC - 3880 Tollgate Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 100% Riverside Housing, LLC 80% K2 Housing Naples GP, LLC 20% See attachment for additional ownership information 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: 9/15/22 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Date of option: _________________________ Date option terminates: __________________, or Anticipated closing date: ________________ AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition’s final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) Daniel Kessler Digitally signed by Daniel Kessler Date: 2023.04.04 16:18:23 -06'00' DANIEL KESSLER 04/04/2023 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Page 1 TOLLGATE COMM. CENTER PUD/DRI Property Ownership Disclosure Attachment Property Owner: K2 Housing Naples, LLC = 100% Riverside Housing, LLC = 80% Board of Directors = Thomas Taylor, Dudley Goodlette, Daniel J. Lavender, Clark Hill, Michael Wynn K2 Housing Naples GP, LLC = 20% K2 Naples Investors, LLC = 50% Christopher G. Korge = 21% K2 Housing LLC = 4.833% Matthew Lohry = 0.417% M. Gordon Daniels = 41.667% Richard Schiffrin = 8.333% Thomas J. Knox = 23.750% Invisible Naples Investment, LLC = 50% James M. Kilts Trust = 43% Reichenbaum Family LP = 53% Leon Lauk = 2% Michal Saadine = 1% Vikas Choudhary = 1% 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT III.B – ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Addressing Checklist (Rev 10/2022) Page 1 of 1 Operations & Regulatory Management Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items marked with (*) are required for every application, other items are optional and may not apply to every project. Forms are valid for 6 months following their submittal; an updated form will be required for a new submittal after that timeframe and any time the properties within the project boundary are modified. Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include: -* LOCATION MAP and/or SURVEY showing the proposed project boundary. -List of additional folio numbers and associated legal descriptions. - E-mail from Addressing Official for any pre-approved project and/or street names. LOCATION INFORMATION *FOLIO (Property ID) Number(s) of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] *LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] STREET ADDRESS(ES) where applicable, if already assigned. PROJECT INFORMATION Acceptance of this form does not constitute project and/or street name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Official. Pre-Approval may be requested by contacting us at GMD_Addressing@colliercountyfl.gov or 239-252-2482 prior to your submittal. CURRENT PROJECT NAME PROPOSED PROJECT NAME PROPOSED STREET NAME(s) LATEST APPROVED PROJECT NUMBER [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####] 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 4/25/23, 2:25 PM Collier County Property Appraiser https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 $ 7,000,000 $ 0 $ 3,200,000 $ 3,080,000 $ 0 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,179,840 $ 2,815,532 $ 4,995,372 $ 577,295 $ 4,418,077 $ 4,995,372 $ 4,418,077 Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Summar y Parcel No 76885005005 Site Address*Disclaimer 3880 TOLLGATEBLVD Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34114 Name / Address K2 HOUSING NAPLES LLC 3880 TOLLGATE BLVD City NAPLES State FL Zip 34114-5444 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres  *Estimated 4B35 664000PH 1 24B35 35 49 26 4.33 Legal TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE I, PARCEL 2 AND W15FT OF THE W1/2 OF PARCEL 1BOUNDED BY THE PROLONGATION OF NLY AND SLY LINES OF PARCEL 2 Millage Area 31 Millage Rates   *Calculations Sub./Condo 664000 - TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CTR PH 1 School Other Total Use Code 39 - HOTELS, MOTELS 4.459 6.6904 11.1494 Latest Sales Histor y (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 09/12/22 6174-1554 07/16/15 5180-2026 10/02/08 4397-3297 07/03/00 2693-2184 08/02/89 1466-503 08/01/89 1462-338  2022 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (-) 10% Cap (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll   9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 4/25/23, 2:26 PM Collier County Property Appraiser https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 $ 7,000,000 $ 0 $ 75 $ 0 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Summar y Parcel No 76885005102 Site Address*Disclaimer Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34114 Name / Address K2 HOUSING NAPLES LLC 3880 TOLLGATE BLVD City NAPLES State FL Zip 34114-5444 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres  *Estimated 4B35 664000PH 1 1.14B35 35 49 26 0.75 Legal TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE 1 EAST 70FT OF THE W1/2 OF PARCEL 1 BOUNDED BY THEPROLONGATION OF NLY AND SLY LINES OF PARCEL 2 Millage Area 31 Millage Rates   *Calculations Sub./Condo 664000 - TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CTR PH 1 School Other Total Use Code 28 - PARKING LOTS, MOBILE HOME PARKS 4.459 6.6904 11.1494 Latest Sales Histor y (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 09/12/22 6174-1554 07/16/15 5180-2026  2022 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll   9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT III.J – SURROUNDING LAND USE MAP 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) l�\li 28100 Bonita Grande Drive Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Tel. 239 405.7777 wwwrviplanning.com �-Amazon PJtkihg---.,,,.,,..:,c::::===-----:-1 tl.o' TOLLGATE HOUSING PARCEL GMPA • SURROUNDING LAND USES MAP 9 Collier County, FL El 3/18/2024 # 22005718 :. K2 Housing Naples, LLC Subject Property 200 400 Feet lnformst10n fumish•d ,egiudmg this property 1s flom so\.lroes de1iwed reliable. RVi has not made an lll"ldependent tnvntigahon of these sources and no warranly is made as to lheit accuracy or oompleteness. This plan IS conceptual. subjecl to change, .and does nol repreHnl any regulilhxy .appro\'a1. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT IV.B – PROPOSED GMPA STRIKETHROUGH/UNDERLINE 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Page 1 Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Proposed Text Amendment II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Policy 1.5: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: C. URBAN - COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict (LXXXVI) 2.a. Tollgate Housing Parcel (V) 3. Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict (VI) 5. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict (VI) 6. Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict (VI) 7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict (XII) 8. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict (XIV)(XV) 9. Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict (XIX) 10. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict (XLIII)(XLIV) 11. Davis – Radio Commercial Subdistrict (XLV) 12. Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict (XLVIII) 13. East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict (L) 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict (LVIII) 15. Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict (LXII) 16. Germain Immokalee Commercial Subdistrict (LXIII) 17. Greenway – Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict (LXIV) 18. Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict (LXXXII) 19. Ivy Medical Center Subdistrict * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. Urban – Commercial District * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict: Interchange Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map at three of the County’s four Interstate 75 interchanges and include numbers 4, 9 and 10; there is no Activity Center at the new I-75/Golden Gate Parkway interchange. The boundaries of these Interchange Activity Centers have been specifically defined on the maps located at the end of this Section as part of the Future Land Use Map Series. Any changes to the boundaries of these Interchange Activity Centers shall require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map Series. Interchange Activity Centers #4 (I- 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Proposed Text Amendment Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 2 of 4 75 at Immokalee Road) and #10 (I-75 at Pine Ridge Road) allow for the same mixture of land uses as allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers; additionally, industrial uses, as identified below, are allowed in the southwest and southeast quadrants of Interchange Activity Center #4. No industrial uses shall be allowed in Interchange Activity Center #10. The actual mix of uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. All new projects within Activity Center #9 are encouraged to have a unified plan of development in the form of a Planned Unit Development. However, the 3.7-acre property formerly utilized by the Florida Highway Patrol Headquarters located east of the Tollgate PUD/DRI may be split into two (2) parcels and one of the parcels being 3.4 acres will be permitted to utilize conventional zoning. The remainder 0.26-acre parcel is excluded from Interchange Activity Center #9. The mixture of uses allowed in Interchange Activity Center #9 shall include all land uses allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers; additionally, industrial uses shall be allowed in the northeast and southeast quadrants of I- 75 and Collier Boulevard, and in the southwest quadrant of Collier and Davis Boulevards. The actual mix of uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. For residential-only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be allowed. Development located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center in all subdistrict may be permitted up to 25 units per gross acre per standards of the Mixed - Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict, except as allowed by the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. For a residential-only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. Mixed-use developments‒whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building‒are allowed and encouraged within Interchange Activity Centers. Such mixed-use projects are intended to be developed at a humanscale, pedestrian-oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects–whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, th e eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre. Development located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center in all subdistrict may be permitted up to twenty -five (25) units per gross acre per standards of the mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use, the density accumulated from the Activity 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Proposed Text Amendment Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 3 of 4 Center portion of the project shall not be distributed outside of the Activity Center. Based on the unique location and function of Interchange Activity Centers, some Industrial land uses‒those that serve regional markets and derive specific benefit when located in the Interchange Activity Centers‒shall be allowed in the Activity Center quadrants previously identified. These uses shall be limited to: manufacturing, warehousing, storage, and distribution. During the rezone process, each such use shall be reviewed to determine if it will be compatible with existing and approved land uses. The following conditions shall be required to ensure compatibility of Industrial land uses with other land uses allowed in the Interchange Activity Centers; to maintain the appearance of these Interchange Activity Centers as gateways to the community; and to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, glare or fumes to the adjacent property owners. The Planned Unit Development and/or rezoning ordinance shall contain specific language regarding the permitted Industrial land uses, compatibility requirements, and development standards consistent with the following conditions. Site-specific development details will be reviewed during the Site Development Plan review process. a. Landscaping, buffering and/or berming shall be installed along the Interstate; b. Fencing shall be wooden or masonry; c. Wholesale and storage uses shall not be permitted immediately adjacent to the right-ofway of the Interstate; d. Central water and sewage systems shall be required; e. Ingress and egress shall be consistent with State Access Management Plans, as applicable; f. No direct access to the Interstate right-of-way shall be permitted; g. Joint access and frontage roads shall be established when frontage is not adequate to meet the access spacing requirements of the Access Control Policy, Activity Center Access Management Plan provisions, or State Access Management Plans, as applicable; h. Access points and median openings shall be designed to provide adequate turning radii to accommodate truck traffic and to minimize the need for U-turn movements; i. The developer shall be responsible to provide all necessary traffic improvements to include traffic signals, turn lanes, deceleration lanes, and other improvements deemed necessary‒as determined through the rezoning process; and, j. A maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the designated Industrial land uses component of the projects shall be established at 0.45. 2.a. Tollgate Housing Parcel The Tollgate Housing Parcel comprises 5+/- acres on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), north of Beck Boulevard with direct access to Tollgate Boulevard within Activity Center #9 in Section 35, Township 49, Range 26. In addition to the uses, densities, and intensities allowed in Activity Center #9, the Tollgate Housing Parcel is intended to allow multi-family dwelling units to promote the integration of housing in proximity to transit, employment centers, and public infrastructure, which will serve to reduce existing trip lengths. The Tollgate Housing Parcel is identified in the Activity Cener Subdistrict Map included as Part of the FLUM and Map Series for Activity Center #9, and is 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Proposed Text Amendment Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 4 of 4 within the existing Tollgate Commercial Center PUD. The Development of the Tollgate Housing Parcel shall be governed by the following criteria: a. Rezoning is required to be in the form of an amendment to the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD. b. Residential uses are allowed at a maximum density of 22 dwelling units per acre calculated based upon the entire acreage of the Tollgate Housing Parcel, not to exceed 110 dwelling units, and related amenities. 1) Twenty-five (25) units (collectively referred to as “Set Aside Units”) shall be restricted as follows: a) Twelve (12) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. b) Thirteen (13) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. 2) There will be no income restrictions on the remaining units within the Tollgate Housing Parcel identified on FLUE Activity Center Map #9. However, the remaining units will be rent restricted at a rent equal to or less than rents permitted for households whose incomes are up to and including 120% of the AMI for Collier County. These rent restrictions will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Rent limits may be adjusted annually based on the rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 3) The Set Aside Units shall be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first Set Aside Unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. 4) As part of the annual PUD monitoring report, the developer will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of the income restricted units. For rent restricted units, rent rolls and rental data will be provided in a format approved by Collier County Community and Human Services Division. Developer agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. c. All dwellings will be rental units. d. The Density Rating System is not applicable to the Tollgate Housing Parcel. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT V.A.1 – LOCATION MAP 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Collier County, FL 22005718 K2 Housing Naples LLC Copyw rite RVI Inform ation furnished regarding this property is from sources deemed reliable. RVi has not made an independent investigation of these sources and no warranty is m ade as to their accuracy or completeness. This plan is conceptual, subject to change, and does not represent any regulatory approval. 10401 Highland Manor Dr. Suite 220 Tampa, FL 33610 Tel: 813.443.8282 www.rviplanning.com TOLLGATE COMMERICAL CENTER D RI/PU D• LOCATION MAP Date: 11/8/2022 COLLIER BLVDINTERSTATE 75 Subject Boundary PUD Boundary 0 660 1,320330 Feet[Document Path: \\flbon\projects\2022\22005718 - Tollgate Super 8 Rezone (K2 Developers, LLC)\04 BASE INFORMATION\02 GIS\MXDs\Tollgate Super 8 Location Map.mxdBECK BLVDDAVIS BLVD PROJECTSITE DRI/PUD BOUNDARY 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT V.A.2 – PROPERTY AERIAL 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Collier County, FL 22005718 K2 Housing Naples LLC Copyw rite RVI Inform ation furnished regarding this property is from sources deemed reliable. RVi has not made an independent investigation of these sources and no warranty is m ade as to their accuracy or completeness. This plan is conceptual, subject to change, and does not represent any regulatory approval. 10401 Highland Manor Dr. Suite 220 Tampa, FL 33610 Tel: 813.443.8282 www.rviplanning.com TOLLGATE COMMERICAL CENTER D RI/PU D • AERIAL MAP Date: 11/2/2022 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGR ID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityCOLLIER BLVDINTERSTATE 75 Subject Boundary PUD Boundary 0 220 440110 Feet[Document Path: \\flbon\projects\2022\22005718 - Tollgate Super 8 Rezone (K2 Developers, LLC)\04 BASE INFORMATION\02 GIS\MXDs\Tollgate Super 8 Aerial Map.mxdBECK B LVD TOLLGATE BLVD9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT V.B.1 – EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) CITY GATE WHITELAKEINDUSTRIALCORP. PARK FOREST GLENNOF NAPLES TOLLPLAZA RVPARK COLLIER BLVD.MIXED USECOMM. CNTR. GOLDEN GATECOMMERCE PARK TOLLGATE EASTTOLLPLAZA GALLMANOLDSDEALERSHIP I-75/ALLIGATORALLEY WOODSIDELANES I-75/COLLIERBLVD COMMERECENTER WESTPORTCOMMERCECENTER CEDARHAMMOCK G& C CLUB EAST GATEWAY TRIADMAC MAGNOLIA POND SADDLEBROOKVILLAGESHERWOOD PARK VINCENT ACRES RESOURCERECOVERYBUSINESS PARK E A PUD A RMF-6 RMF-12(7) A A PUD RMF-12(8.9) PUD IC-3 C-4 RMF-12(7) PUD PUD PUD I PUD PUD A RSF-3 PUD C-4 MPUD RPUDRPUDPUDCPUD PUD RSF-4 P PUDPUD A MPUD A PUD PUD PUD RMF-6 MPUD PUD MPUD RPUDC-3 RMF-12(10) IPUD A ACTIVITY CENTER #9 C.R. 951 - INTERSTATE 75 Collier County, Florida £PREPARED BY: GIS/CAD MAPPING SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT FILE: Adopted AC9 Map.mxd Date: 03/11/2023 0 500 1,000 1,500250 Feet LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF-3 EXISTING ZONING (NOTE: PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY; THE OFFICIAL SOURCE OF ZONING INFORMATION IS THE ZONING ATLAS SET, WHICH IS PART OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. ORDINANCE NO. 04-41, AS AMENDED) DEVELOPED LAND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AMENDED - JUNE 13, 2017 (Ord. No. 2017-22) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 (Ord. No. 2011-26) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 (Ord. No. 2020-25) AMENDED - APRIL 25, 2023 (Ord. No. 2023-20) Document Path: M:\GIS_Requests\2024\03-Mar\GSD-40539 Correct Activity Center Map for Incorrect Ord. No\ACTIVITY CENTER 9\Adopted AC9 Map.mxd 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT V.B.2 - PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT V.D.1 – SPRAWL ANALYSIS 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Page 1 Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Exhibit V.D.1 - Sprawl Analysis Section 163.3177(6)(a)9, F.S., states that “… any amendment to the future land use element shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.” Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b, F.S., specifies that a, “plan amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following:” (I) Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. Response: The proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) directs compact residential growth patterns to an urbanized area of the county where development is encouraged. Moreover, the GMPA allows for the reuse of existing development. As a result, growth pressure on environmentally sensitive lands, wildlife habitats and associated natural resources is alleviated. (II) Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. Response: The amendment proposes to increase density within an existing activity center, where adequate and available infrastructure exists to accommodate the proposed increase in residential density as outlined in Exhibit IV.E, Public Facilities Analysis. (III) Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available. Response: The project is served by an adequate roadway system including Collier Blvd., Beck Blvd., and Tollgate Blvd. The amendment will not increase the previously approved vehicle trips for the PUD as the proposed MF use will generate less trips than the existing hotel use. Development authorized through this amendment will demonstrate a high level of connectivity by providing opportunities for multi-modal transportation through the integration of residential uses proximate to existing and planned commercial and employment uses. The resulting development patterns will support walking, bicycling, and fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) between housing, commercial uses and employment and in developments with greater separation from non-residential uses. The amendment proposes to include multifamily development, in an area of the county where such demand exists and proximate to non-residential uses. The project will connect to existing sidewalks on both Collier Blvd. and Beck Blvd., as well as existing public transit facilities in the area. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Exhibit V.D.1 - Sprawl Analysis Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 2 of 3 (IV) Promotes conservation of water and energy. Response: The proposed amendment allows for the reuse of an existing building and does not alter existing energy conservation requirements in the DRI approval. Previously approved preserve requirements also remain unchanged in the proposed PUD amendment. As the property is located in an urbanized portion of the County, with existing and available public infrastructure, the amendment will not require an expansion of facilities to support the development, which also results in the conservation of energy. (V) Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. Response: The site is not appropriate for agricultural uses due to the existing development on the property and planned development in the immediate area. By allowing a diverse housing project to occur in an area where it is appropriate and compatible with surrounding land uses, the demand to develop in areas with active agriculture is protected, in direct compliance with this statute. (VI) Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Response: By locating the requested development program in an existing interchange activity center surrounded by other mixed-use developments, the project directly complies by preserving existing natural lands. Furthermore, as detailed in the companion PUD rezone application, the previously approved preserve area within the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD will remain. (VII) Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. Response: In direct compliance with this statute, the proposed amendment provides for the development of a compact residential project to provide more diverse, in-demand housing options to serve the projected population growth in Collier County. The proposed amendment supports the development of a mix of housing types in proximity to goods and services, as well as employment opportunities. The reuse of the hotel for workforce housing in this area balances the need for housing that is proximate to employment uses. (VIII) Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented developments or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164. Response: The proposed GMPA provides for unique residential housing within an existing planned development. The proposed development is within an activity center that includes 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Exhibit V.D.1 - Sprawl Analysis Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 3 of 3 other existing and developing mixed use planned developments, and therefore contributes to the development pattern in this area where such growth is appropriate and anticipated. By reusing a hotel as a multifamily development in a developed activity center with public infrastructure and continued employment growth, the County can accommodate projected long-term growth in population while preserving the rural lands in the eastern portions of the County. Section 163.3178(1), F.S., states that “A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions:” (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 50 acres or fewer and: Response: The proposed amendment is limited to 5± 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. Response: The proposed text changes are limited to those that relate directly to the small- scale 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). Response: The property is not located within an area of critical state concern. In conclusion, this amendment specifically addresses all aspects of the County’s vision for clustered, compact development and a diversity of housing types in the urban service area. The amendment will provide for housing proximate to goods, services, employment and transit. The amendment also makes efficient use of the public investment in infrastructure, while ensuring the long-term preservation of large tracts of environmentally sensitive and agriculturally productive lands in the rural area. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT V.E.1 & 3 – PUBLIC FACILITIES ANALYSIS 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Page 1 Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Exhibit V.E.1 & 3 – Public Facilities The proposed text amendment is site-specific and only applies to a portion of the Tollgate Commercial Center MPUD, located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Collier Blvd. and I-75. The proposed application requests up to 22 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 110 dwelling units (DUs) on the 5-acre parcel. The following public facilities analysis evaluates the project impacts on potable water, wastewater, drainage, parks, schools, roadways, fire/EMS, and solid waste. The source for the LOS information is the 2022 AUIR. 1. POTABLE WATER Adopted Level of Service Standard = 130 gallons per capita day (gpcd) Potable Water Demand: 110 DU x 130 GPD x 2.5 PPH = 35,750 GPD Peak Water Demand: 35,750 GPD x 1.3 = 46,475 GPD Permitted Treatment Capacity (FY 23): 52.00 MGD Required Treatment Capacity (FY23): 37.86 MGD Permitted Treatment Capacity (FY 32): 57.00 MGD Required Treatment Capacity (FY32): 42.65 MGD The proposed GMP amendment results in an increased potable water demand of 35,750 GPD and increased peak water demand of 46,475 GPD. The property is located within the Collier County potable water service area. The County has existing plant capacity of approximately 14.14 MGD for FY23. The proposed 110 multi-family dwelling units will not create any LOS issues in the 10-year planning horizon. This Project will have no significant impact on the potable water system and capacity is available in Collier County. 2. SANITARY SEWER Adopted Level of Service Standard = 90 GPD/person/day Wastewater Demand: 110 DU x 90 GPD x 2.5 PPH = 24,750 GPD Peak Wastewater Demand: 24,750 GPD x 1.24 = 30,690 GPD Permitted/Operational Treatment Capacity (FY 23): 16.00 MGD Required Treatment Capacity (FY 23): 11.10 MGD Permitted/Operational Treatment Capacity (FY 32): 16.00 MGD Required Treatment Capacity (FY 32): 11.84 MGD The proposed GMP amendment results in an increased wastewater demand of 24,750 GPD and increased peak wastewater demand of 30,690 GPD. The Tollgate Housing Subdistrict is in the South Sewer Service Area of the Collier County Water/Sewer District. The proposed 110 multi-family dwelling units will not create any LOS issues in the 10-year planning horizon. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Exhibit V.E.1 & 3 – Public Facilities Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 2 of 3 This proposed amendment will have no significant impact on the Collier County Regional Sewer System. 3. ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADS Please refer to the TIS Waiver Request for discussions of the project’s impact on level of service for arterial and collector roadways within the project’s radius of development influence. 4. DRAINAGE The County has adopted a LOS standard for private developments which requires development to occur consistent with water quantity and quality standards established in Ordinances 74-50, 90-10, 2001-27, and LDC Ordinance 2004-41, as may be amended. The Tollgate Housing Subdistrict will not include any expansion of existing development areas. The existing development will utilize and refurbish the existing building on the property and will comply with the existing permits. The proposed amendment is consistent with the County LOS standards. 5. SOLID WASTE Adopted LOS = Two (2) years of lined cell capacity Ten (10) years of permittable landfill capacity of the disposal rate. Solid Waste Demand: 110 DU x 0.67 tons per person x 2.5 PPH = 184.25 tons Two (2) years of constructed lined cell capacity requirement: 555,384 tons Two (2) years of constructed lined cell capacity: 3,935,561 tons Ten (10) years permittable capacity requirement: 2,906,534 tons Total remaining permittable capacity: 12,906,476 tons The proposed GMP amendment results in an increased solid waste demand of 184.25 tons per year. The proposed 110 multi-family dwelling units will not create any LOS issues in the 10-year planning horizon. The current two (2) years of constructed lined cell capacity 3,380,117 tons. The current total remaining capacity is 9,999,942 tons. The amendment will not create any current capacity issues, and none are anticipated through the year 2062. 6. COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PARKS Adopted LOS = 1.2 acres per 1,000/population for community park land 2.7 acres per 1,000/population for regional park land Existing Demand: N/A Proposed Demand: 110 DU x 1.2 acres x (2.5 PPH/1,000) = 0.33 Acres 110 DU x 2.7 acres x (2.5 PPH/1,000) = 0.74 Acres 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Exhibit V.E.1 & 3 – Public Facilities Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Page 3 of 3 Community Parks Inventory: Available Inventory as of 9/30/2022: 553.09 Acres Required Inventory as of 9/30/2027: 548.81 Acres Regional Parks Inventory: Available Inventory as of 9/30/2022: 1,561.71 Acres Required Inventory as of 9/30/2027: 1,363.59 Acres The proposed GMP amendment results in an increased community parks demand of 0.33 acres and increased regional parks demand of 0.74 acres. There is sufficient park land inventory to accommodate the 110 multi-family dwelling units. Additionally, the proposed dwelling units will pay park impact fees to mitigate their impacts on this public facility. Therefore, there will be no adverse impacts to Community or Regional Parks. The proposed amendment is consistent with the County LOS standards. 7. SCHOOLS The Tollgate Housing Subdistrict is located within District 1. A School Impact Analysis Application is attached. The proposed 110 dwelling units will pay school impact fees to mitigate the increased demand. No adverse impacts to schools result from the creation of the subdistrict. 8. FIRE CONTROL AND EMS The proposed project lies within the Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District. The Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District - Station #27 is located at 3820 Beck Blvd, N, which is approximately 0.5 mile from the property boundary. No significant impacts to Fire Control level of service are anticipated due to the proposed project. Estimated impact fees for EMS and fire would be determined at time of SDP based on each unit. Sheriff, Fire Protection and EMS Services location/address of facilities intended to serve the project are: • Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District - Station #27, located at 3820 Beck Blvd, Naples, FL 34114. • Collier County Sheriff North Naples District 3 Substation, located at 8075 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, FL 34116. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT V.E.2 – INFRASTRUCTURE MAP 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT V.G.1 – WARRANTY DEED 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXHIBIT V.G.2 – LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 352Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment TIS 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [√] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I.Project Information: Project Name: ___________________________________________ Municipality: _________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II.Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Email_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III.Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Worksheet is required to be completed by the Applicant only if the project is to be phased: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF MF MH C G Totals by Yr Grand Total Grand Total Insert totals by unit type by years. Unit Types: SF = Single Family MF = Multi-Family/Apartments MH = Mobile Homes C = Condo/Co-Op G = Government EXAMPLE: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF 25 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MF 50 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MH N/A C N/A G N/A Totals by Yr 75 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Grand Total 150 . 2 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Types of Reviews: School Impact Analysis: This review should be divided into two categories: - School Capacity Review (land use and rezonings), and; - Concurrency Determinations (site plans and subdivisions). School Capacity Review is the review of a project in the land use and rezoning stage of development. It is a review of the impact of the development on school capacity and is considered long range planning. This may be a review resulting in mitigation being required. In situations where the applicant may be required to mitigate, capacity may be reserved dependent on the type of mitigation. Concurrency Determination is the review of residential site plans and subdivisions to determine whether there is available capacity. When capacity is determined to be available a School Capacity Determination Letter (SCADL) will be issued verifying available capacity to the applicant and the local government. If a project exceeds the adopted level of service standards, the applicant is afforded the option of a negotiation period that may or may not result in an executed/recorded mitigation agreement Mitigation at this stage is expressed as a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. For those residential developments that may have an impact but are otherwise exempt from concurrency, an exemption letter will be prepared for the applicant upon request. For those residential developments that are determined to not have an impact, a letter of no impact will be prepared for the applicant upon request. Exemption Letter: An applicant may request an Exemption Letter as documentation for the local government. These are projects that would be exempt from school concurrency review or projects that do not impact the public schools. Exemptions from school concurrency are limited to existing single family or mobile home lots of record; amendments to previously approved site plans or plats that do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type; age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18; or residential site plans or plats or amendments to site plans or plats that generate less than one student; or are authorized as a Development of Regional Impact (Chapter 380, F.S.) as of July 1, 2005. Concurrency Determination Amendment: An applicant may request an amendment to a previously issued School Concurrency Determination or to an application being processed. This review may require additional staff time beyond the initial concurrency determination review and results in a modified determination being issued. An amendment could result in a negotiation period and/or a mitigation agreement being issued or a previously approved determination being modified and reissued. 3 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 366 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 367 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) Tollgate Residential Infill Subdistrict GMP Amendment EXPEDITED REVIEW FORM 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPEDITED REVIEW Name of Development: _Tollgate Commercial Center_ Address/Location: ___3880 Tollgate Boulevard (Parcels 76885005005 and 76885005102)______ Applicant /Agent: __RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture c/o Jem Frantz, AICP Phone / Email: _(239) 357-9580 jfrantz@rviplanning.com__________________ Size of Property: ___5+/- acres____________________________________________________ Proposed Use: _ Residential________________________________ Total Number Residential Units Planned: 110 dwelling units Number of Affordable Housing Units Planned: Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 121% - 140% AMI - GAP Income Rental _13_OR Owner Occupied _13__ 81% - 120% AMI - Moderate Income Rental _12_OR Owner Occupied _12__ 51% - 80% AMI - Low Income Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 50% or less AMI - Very Low Income Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 30% or less AMI - Extremely Low Income Permit Number, if available: __PL2023007874 & PL20230007875 & PL20230007876_____________ Proposed Land Use Restriction: X - PUD Restriction or AHDB Agreement -Developer Agreement -Impact Fee Deferral Agreement -Grant Restriction -Other: __________________________ I hereby certify that the above described project meets the definition of providing affordable Housing in Collier County and as such is entitled to participate in the County’s “Expedited Review Procedures of Affordable Housing” as described in the Collier County Administrative Code through Resolution No. 2018-40. By: Date: Community and Human Services Division By: Date: Jan 17, 2024_______ Builder/ Owner/ Developer/ Contractor This Certification must be submitted to the Growth Management Department with permit application package, or plan revisions, within nine months of date of issuance. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Tollgate Housing Parcel GMPA Hearing Backup (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) ND-40127463 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M. on September 20, 2024, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES TO ADD THE TOLLGATE HOUSING PARCEL TO PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS URBAN, URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER SUBDISTRICT, ACTIVITY CENTER #9 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 110 MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON 5 ACRES OF LAND ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL 11 OF THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, “A” PARCELS, ON THE TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL USES, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BECK BOULEVARD AT 3880 TOLLGATE BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20230007876] AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-10, AS AMENDED, THE TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 110 MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PARCEL 11 OF THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, “A” PARCELS, AS SHOWN ON THE PUD MASTER PLAN, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL USES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BECK BOULEVARD AT 3880 TOLLGATE BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20230007874] AND A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-1, AS AMENDED, FOR THE TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MAP H) TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 110 MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PARCEL 11 OF THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, “A” PARCELS, AS SHOWN ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL USES, COMPRISING 5± ACRES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT; BY EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE AND BUILDOUT DATE TO AUGUST 1, 2030; SECTION TWO, EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BECK BOULEVARD AT 3880 TOLLGATE BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20230007875] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Ordinances & Resolution will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk’s office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401, Naples, FL 34112, one (1) week prior to the scheduled hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division, prior to September 20, 2024. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/ our-county/visitors/calendar-of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Ray Bellows at 252-2463 or email to Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer, Chairman Davi sBLVD City Gate BLVD SShawBLVD I-75 Beck BLVDCollier BLVDWhiteLakeBLVD I-75 BusinessCIR PeriwinkleWAYPlover A V E I-75 !I Project Location 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: ND-40127463-rev (29749 : PL20230007876-Tollgate Housing Subdistrict (GMPA)) 09/20/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Doc ID: 29781 Item Summary: PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - 3880 Tollgate Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard, north of Beck Boulevard - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-10, as amended, the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), within the Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay (CBIIZO), by amending the PUD document to allow development of 110 multi-family rental units with affordable housing on Parcel 11 of the Commercial Areas, "A" Parcels, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, as an alternative to commercial uses; and by providing an effective date. The subject property is located in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] (Companion to GMPA-PL20230007876, Tollgate Housing Subdistrict and DOA-PL20230007875, Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI) Meeting Date: 09/20/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Laura DeJohn 08/26/2024 6:47 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 08/26/2024 6:47 PM Approved By: Review: Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/05/2024 4:21 PM Unknown Jaime Cook GMCDD Reviewer Completed 09/06/2024 12:57 PM Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch GMD Approver Completed 09/09/2024 2:46 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/09/2024 4:18 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Completed 09/09/2024 4:49 PM Growth Management Community Development Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 09/13/2024 3:56 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 09/20/2024 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 392 PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 1 of 20 August 22, 2024 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20230007874 TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD AMENDMENT (Companion to DOA- PL20230007875 Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Amendment & GMPA-PL20230007876 Tollgate Housing Subdistrict) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Agents: K2 Housing Naples LLC 3880 Tollgate Blvd Naples, FL 34114-5444 Jem Frantz, AICP RVI Planning + Landscape Architecture 28100 Bonita Grande Dr. #305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an amendment to Ordinance Number 92-10, as amended, the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), within the Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay (CBIIZO), to allow development of 110 multi-family rental units with affordable housing on Parcel 11 of the Commercial Areas, “A” Parcels, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, as an alternative to commercial use of the existing Super 8 Motel at 3880 Tollgate Boulevard. A companion DRI Development Order Amendment (DOA-PL20230007875) is requested to make corresponding changes to allow multifamily residential use on Parcel 11, and a companion GMP Amendment (GMPA-PL20230007876) is requested to create a new subdistrict within the Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict called Tollgate Housing Parcel allowing for the multifamily residential use on the ±5-acre site. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is +5 acres at the northern terminus of Tollgate Boulevard within the +100- acre DRI/PUD in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florid a. The 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 2 of 20 August 22, 2024 address is 3880 Tollgate Boulevard and includes Parcel No. 76885005005 and 76885005102. See location map. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: On February 11, 1992, the Board of Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 92-10, the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of ±100.23 acres, repealing Ordinance No. 84-6 relating to a prior rezone. The PUD was then amended by the Board of Commissioners on December 14, 1993, with approval of Ordinance No. 93-91, on September 25, 2015, with approval of Ordinance No. 15-49, and on May 9, 2017, with approval of Ordinance No. 17-15. The PUD allows for a mixture of commercial and light industrial uses. The subject site is +5 acres at 3880 Tollgate Boulevard and includes Parcel Nos. 76885005005 and 76885005102. The site is currently developed as a 104 -room Super 8 Motel constructed in 1990 and an unused semi-improved parking area. The petitioner refers to the site as Parcel 11 per the PUD Master Plan; the subject property is legally described as Parcel 2 and Parcel 1 of Tollgate Commercial Center Phase 1. Parcel 2 is roughly 4.33 acres occupied by the Super 8 Motel and 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 3 of 20 August 22, 2024 associated parking; Parcel 1 is roughly 0.75 acres encumbered by a Florida Power and Light easement where the unused semi-improved parking area is located. The site is in the Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center #9 on the Future Land Use Map. The Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay (CBIIZO) applies to the site; this overlay was established to attract and retain qualified targeted industry businesses as defined by Florida Statutes §288.106. The petitioner seeks to convert the existing 104-room Super 8 Motel, which was constructed in 1990, into 110 multifamily dwellings. The proposed 110 units on the 4.33-acre motel property equate to a density of 25.4 units per acre; when calculated on the 5.0-acre site, the density is 22 units per acre. The calculation of density across the entire 100-acre PUD is 1.1 units per acre. A companion GMP Amendment (PL20230007876) is requested to change the Future Land Use designation from Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, to the Tollgate Housing Parcel Subdistrict with corresponding text amendments to allow for the proposed conversion. An amendment to the Tollgate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order is also requested to allow for the proposed conversion (PL20230007875). The petitioner requests to convert the existing 104 hotel units into 110 multi-family dwelling units, of which 25 of the units (22.7%) will be “set aside” as income-restricted for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the first unit as follows: • 12 units (10.9%) for households earning up to and including 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County • 13 units (11.8%) for households earning up to and including 100% of the AMI Set aside units will be held vacant and advertised for a minimum period to give preference to employees of Moorings, Incorporated, and affiliates, or other health care providers, teachers, first responders, hospitality workers, and government employees as outlined in Section III, “Commercial Areas Plan,” of Exhibit A included with the Draft PUD Ordinance, provided as Attachment A to this staff report. Remaining units will be rent restricted at a affordable rents for households whose incomes are up to and including 120% of the AMI for Collier County. Two deviations are requested: 1. Request to allow 5-foot-wide Type A buffers on the north, south, and west sides of Parcel 11 in lieu of the required 15-foot-wide Type B buffers and for the 15-foot-wide Type B buffer required on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside the FPL easement in closer proximity to the building. 2. Request to allow no additional parking for recreation facilities and other common uses. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 4 of 20 August 22, 2024 For additional information on the requested deviations, see page 16 of this report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the subject property referenced as Parcel 11 in the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI/PUD-CBIIZO: North: I-75 Right-of Way, beyond which are industrial uses zoned White Lake Industrial Park PUD-CBIIZO East: FPL easement and Amazon parking lot within the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI/PUD-CBIIZO. South: Self-storage facility within the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI/PUD- CBIIZO. West: Comfort Inn Hotel within the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI/PUD- CBIIZO. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land-use decisions, such as this proposed amendment. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any amendment petition. Upon adoption of the companion GMPA- PL20230007876, this petition will be consistent with the GMP. Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The ±5.0-acre subject property is designated on the Collier County Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Urban, Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center #9 intended for concentrations of commercial and 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 5 of 20 August 22, 2024 mixed-use development activities. Additionally, industrial uses are allowed in the northeast and southeast quadrants of I-75 and Collier Boulevard. The subject property is located within the Phase 1 “A” Parcels and identified as “Parcel 11” on the PUD Master Development Plan. The actual mix of uses permitted within the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict is determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict. The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD establishes that “A” and “B” Parcels will provide goods and services to motorists and area residents while “B” Parcels may also accommodate service, assembly wholesale, and related heavy business uses. Residential uses are not currently permitted. Since the applicant is requesting to repurpose the existing 104-unit hotel to instead allow for up to 110 multi-family residential dwelling units, this PUD Amendment may only be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan if the companion GMPA (PL20230007876) is approved and goes into effect and the uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s February 28, 2024, TIS and revised PUD Document for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: According to the TIS and revised PUD document, the proposed change will convert an existing 104-room hotel to 110 multi-family dwelling units within the Tollgate Commercial Center development. The TIS for this request indicates that the proposed change will result in a 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 6 of 20 August 22, 2024 potential reduction of +/- 15 PM peak hour two-way trips on the adjacent roadway network. Therefore, based on the TIS and the revised PUD, the subject petition request can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan because there are no additional traffic impacts resulting from the proposed change. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval , approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition cannot be approved until the companion Tollgate Commercial Center GMPA-PL20230007876 is adopted and goes into effect with an effective date linked to the effective date of the companion GMP Amendment. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below under the heading “Zoning Services Analysis.” Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The proposed PUD changes will not affect any of the environmental requirements of the PUD document. Environmental Services staff recommends approval. Landscape Review: For Landscape staff recommendations, see the Deviations Discussion beginning on page 16 of this report and the Staff Recommendation beginning on page 19 of this report. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Housing Policy & Economic Development Review: The petitioner requests to convert the existing 104 hotel units into 110 multi-family dwelling units, of which 25 of the units (22.7%) will be “set aside” as income-restricted, with 12 units (10.9%) limited to those earning 80% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and 13 units (11.8%) limited to those earning up to and including 100 percent of the AMI. Although there will be no income restrictions on the remaining units, they will be rent restricted at a rent equal to or less than rents permitted for households whose incomes are up to and including 120% of the AMI for Collier County. The PUD Amendment includes commitments for the “set aside units” for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Staff recommends that the petitioner provide at least 30% of the residential units as affordable, consistent with previous Board of County Commissioner policy. The 30% requirement would 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 7 of 20 August 22, 2024 result in an additional eight (8) affordable set-aside units (4 at 80% AMI + 4 at 100% AMI). The petitioner maintains that the Board’s 30% set-aside is intended to apply to new developments seeking increased density. This proposal is a redevelopment motel-to-residential conversion project. The most recent motel-to-residential conversion project approved by the Board (Golden Gate Golf Course Inn, November 2023) was approved using the requested 22.7% affordable set- aside, plus the remaining units limited to the 120% AMI rent limit. For reference, the income and rent limits for efficiency apartment units at the 80%, 100%, and 120% AMI levels are as follows… Zoning Services Review: Zoning Division staff has evaluated the proposed uses related to intensity and compatibility. The density of the proposed development is 22.0 units/Ac (110 units / 5.0 acres), which can only be achieved through a GMPA Amendment, which is in the process as companion item GMPA-PL20230007876. The Tollgate Commercial Center is also approved as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), originally approved for 69.4 acres by Development Order 84-1 and amended by Resolution 92-100 (Development Order 92-1) to expand the project limits to 100 acres. See the staff report for the companion DRI Development Order Amendment petition DOA-PL20230007875 for more explanation about the DRI and proposed changes corresponding to this PUDA request. The property would typically be subject to the Density Rating System and maximum density per the GMP. GMP policy allows for residential only development in the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict permitted up to 16 dwelling units per acre and up to 25 dwelling units per acre if utilizing the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable. However, the petitioner is seeking a GMP Amendment to create a subdistrict that will allow for the proposed multi-family residential adaptive reuse of the existing hotel without utilizing the Density Rating System or Mixed-Income Housing Program. The maximum density allowed by the proposed Tollgate Housing Parcel Subdistrict is 22 dwelling units per acre (110 units on 5 acres), with a commitment to provide 22.7% of units as income restricted. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 8 of 20 August 22, 2024 The petitioner requests to convert the existing 104 hotel units into 110 multi-family dwelling units, of which 25 of the units (22.7%) will be “set aside” as income restricted for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the first set aside unit as follows: • 12 units (10.9%) for households earning up to and including 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County • 13 units (11.8%) for households earning up to and including 100% of the AMI Staff recommends that the petitioner increase the commitment from 22.7% to at least 30% of the residential units to be set aside as affordable, consistent with previous Board of County Commissioner policy. The 30% requirement would result in an additional eight (8) affordable set-aside units (4 at 80%AMI + 4 at 100%AMI). The petitioner proposes that the set aside units will be held vacant and advertised for a minimum period to give preference to employees of Moorings, Incorporated, and affiliates, or other health care providers, teachers, first responders, hospitality workers, and government employees as outlined in Section III, “Commercial Areas Plan,” of Exhibit A included with the Draft PUD Ordinance, provided as Attachment A to this staff report. Remaining units will be rent restricted at rents that are affordable for households whose incomes are up to and including 120% of the AMI for Collier County, which corresponds to a monthly rent of $2,193 for an efficiency or studio apartment. The petitioner proposes a minimum unit size of 250 square feet for two occupants and commits that no more than two individuals shall be allowed to reside/occupy in a unit at any given time as outlined in Section III, “Commercial Areas Plan,” of Exhibit A included with the Draft PUD Ordinance, provided as Attachment A to this staff report. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Ordinance No. 2023-65 on December 12, 2023, amending the Collier County Property Maintenance Code minimum square footage requirements that each dwelling shall contain at least 250 square feet of habitable floor space for the first occupant and at least 200 additional habitable square feet per additional occupant. The BCC may now approve a reduction of the minimum square footage requirements through a rezoning for projects that convert an existing building to a multi-family use and include affordable housing units with a minimum of 20 percent of the unit’s income-restricted, provided the habitable floor area is not less than 250 square feet for two occupants. The proposed minimum unit size conforms to the criteria adopted in December 2023. To evaluate compatibility, the existing and permitted uses in immediate proximity to the proposed residential use must be considered. The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD was approved for commercial, business, and industrial uses. The subject site is surrounded by a hotel to the west, I- 75 to the north, and heavy commercial uses of self-storage and Amazon parking to the south and east. The nearest residential development, Forest Glen of Naples PUD, is more than one-half mile away, south of Beck Boulevard. A hotel/motel conversion to residential housing has been approved for the 153-room Quality Inn and Suites within the Golden Gate Golf Course MPUD (PUDA-PL20230012392). That conversion was found to be compatible with the nearby residential development pattern of Golden Gate City, which is in convenient proximity to workplaces, community facilities, schools, goods, and services. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 9 of 20 August 22, 2024 To address compatibility of the proposed Super 8 Motel conversion, staff analyzed the extent to which buffering and screening are proposed to control for adverse impacts of surrounding more intense uses on the proposed residential use. Buffer requirements of LDC Section 4.06.02 apply to all new development. Existing landscaping which does not comply with the provisions of this section shall be brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible when: the vehicular use area is altered or expanded (except for restriping of lots/drives), the building square footage is changed, or there has been a discontinuance of use for a period of one year or more and a request for an occupational license to resume business is made. In May 2023, the petitioner indicated during the Pre-Application meeting for this PUD Amendment that the use of the motel as dwellings had begun, with some tenants being workers of local businesses and some tenants being individuals displaced by Hurricane Ian. Per Code Enforcement Case #CESD20230006969, it was observed that hotel units were being used for dwellings (apartments) as of August 8, 2023. Subsequently, five Code Enforcement cases were opened between September 2023 and December 2023 related to building conditions and work without permits. Two remain open, as described below: A pending Building Permit (PRCS20240521731) and Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change (SDPI-PL20240004805) are in the process of remodeling the building into residential units. Because the Super 8 Motel has been discontinued for at least one year, and the change to residential use is in process, the 15-foot-wide Type B buffer requirement applies where a multifamily use borders a commercial use, and existing landscaping which does not comply with the provisions of this section shall be brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible per the LDC. The existing buffers do not meet the 15-foot-wide Type B buffer standards, and the petitioner is not proposing to enhance existing buffers to achieve the equivalent effect of this LDC provision. The petitioner requests a deviation to allow 5-foot-wide Type A buffers on the north, south, and west sides of the site in lieu of the required 15-foot-wide Type B buffers and for the 15-foot-wide Type 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 10 of 20 August 22, 2024 B buffer required on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside the FPL easement in closer proximity to the building. For additional information on the requested deviations, see page 16 of this report. LDC Section 5.03.02.H. contemplates that a wall should be placed between residential and nonresidential development; specifically, a 6-foot to 8-foot-tall masonry wall, concrete or prefabricated concrete wall, and/or fence is required on the nonresidential property for protection of contiguous residences. Given the circumstances of this proposed conversion to residential use within a commercial/industrial development, the placement of a wall on surrounding nonresidential properties would not apply to those surrounding property owners. The petitioner is not proposing any type of wall or barrier on the subject site to achieve the equivalent effect of this LDC provision. Adding a residential component to the commercial/industrial PUD warrants adding protections for residents from any potential adverse impacts caused by the higher intensity surrounding uses. To ensure better compatibility between the proposed residential and surrounding higher intensity uses, staff’s recommendation includes a condition to bring the existing landscape buffers into conformity with the required buffering for residential uses adjacent to commercial uses and the interstate to the maximum extent possible. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08”: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The site has already been developed with Super 8 Motel. Conversion of the motel building for use as rental housing units will offer an infill housing project in an area proximate to employment. The repurposing of the site for residences may be appropriate and suitable for the area if compatibility is addressed by bringing the existing landscape buffers into conformity with the required buffering for residential uses adjacent to commercial uses and the interstate to the maximum extent possible. The TIS for this request indicates that the proposed change from motel to residential use will result in a potential reduction of traffic impacts to the surrounding area. Renovation of the existing hotel will create no external impacts as renovation will occur largely within the existing structure. The site is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s service area and is currently served by water and sewer via existing facilities. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 11 of 20 August 22, 2024 Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency section of this staff report on page 5. The proposed density is not supported by the GMP. This PUD petition may only be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan if the companion GMPA (PL20230007876) is approved and goes into effect and the uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the 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. The subject property is located in the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD which is approved for commercial and light industrial uses. The Future Land Use Designation is Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict which allows for a mix of land uses while specifically allowing industrial uses in this southeast quadrant of I-75 and Collier Boulevard. The actual mix of uses is determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict. The petitioner seeks to convert the motel to allow for 110 multi-family residential units in an area that consists primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The PUD is required to contain specific language to ensure compatibility between industrial land uses and other land uses allowed in the Interchange Activity Centers. To address compatibility between the proposed residential and surrounding higher intensity uses, staff recommends a condition that the existing landscape buffers be brought into conformity with the required buffering for residential uses adjacent to commercial uses and the interstate to the maximum extent possible. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The PUD Amendment request does not include any changes to the previously approved open space requirements. The petitioner indicates that the PUD currently provides 17.84 acres (17.8% of the gross PUD acreage) designated for preserve and water management areas as well as other useable open space in the form of required yards, landscaped areas, and recreation areas, which exceeds the requirement for 30% of the gross acreage within PUD districts containing commercial, industrial and mixed use including residential per LDC Section 4.07.02 G.2. No deviation from the required usable open space is being requested. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 12 of 20 August 22, 2024 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure will continue to be sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of each development order, at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. 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. Impact fees are imposed to account for public facility impacts and these will be required at time of development permitting. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure to accommodate this project. The PUD boundary is not proposed to be modified and cannot be expanded due to existing development and public roadways bounding the PUD. All proposed changes are limited to Parcel 11 within the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD, part of which is encumbered by an FPL easement which further constrains the ability for expanding development area. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner requests two deviations from the LDC. See the section of the staff report beginning on page 16 for evaluation of the deviation requests. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable”: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency section of this staff report on page 5. The proposed density is not supported by the GMP. This PUD petition may only be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan if the companion GMPA (PL20230007876) is approved and goes into effect and the uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 13 of 20 August 22, 2024 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern of the abutting properties is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this report. The proposed Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA is located in a quadrant of the I-75 interchange in an urbanized portion of the County. The pattern is primarily commercial and industrial. The Collier Boulevard/ Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay (CBIIZO) applies to the site; this overlay was established to attract and retain qualified targeted industry business as defined by Florida Statutes §288.106. The proposed addition of residential uses and densities is not supported by the Growth Management Plan. As such, this PUDA may only be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan if the companion GMPA (PL20230007876) is approved and goes into effect and the uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The property is currently zoned PUD and would remain as such. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing district boundaries are logically drawn. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the PUD. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary but is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. The petitioner believes the PUDA is necessary to accommodate the proposed uses and densities to meet a demand in the surrounding community. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change is not likely to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood as surrounding uses are primarily heavy commercial and light industrial in character; however, due to the introduction of residential use on Parcel 11, additional buffering should be implemented to ensure compatibility for those living on the subject property in relation to the surrounding more intense uses. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure will continue to have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 14 of 20 August 22, 2024 GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of each development order. Additionally, the 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 PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create adverse drainage impacts in the area; provided stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project are addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of development order permitting. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated the changes requested in this PUD Amendment would seriously reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The County growth management policies allow for and encourage mix of uses at Activity Centers. It is not anticipated that the proposed change to allow for 110 multi-family dwelling units, which will displace the previously approved and more intense land use including 104 hotel/motel units on Parcel 11, would be a deterrent to development or improvement of commercial uses allowable on adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development is found to comply with the GMP through approval of the proposed companion amendment (GMPA-PL20230007876), then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting the zoning action as being consistent with GMP policy. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege if it is found by a policy decision through the public decision-making process to be to be in the public interest. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 15 of 20 August 22, 2024 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed use and densities cannot be achieved without amending the PUD, the GMP, and the DRI Development Order. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The County has a recognized need for housing that is affordable, thus approval of a higher density residential project at this location may help the County achieve that objective. Approval of the companion GMP Amendment petition (PL20230007876) to create a new subdistrict within the Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict called Tollgate Housing Parcel is necessary to develop the project at the desired density. 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 based on the materials submitted and information gathered that relate to the subject site, 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. A pending Building Permit (PRCS20240521731) and Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change (SDPI-PL20240004805) are in process for remodeling of the building into residential units. For a more compatible outcome of the conversion from commercial to residential use, staff recommends bringing the existing landscape buffers into conformity with the required buffering for residential uses adjacent to commercial uses and the interstate to the maximum extent possible. 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. Public facility capacities have been reviewed as part of this application process. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no adverse impact on public facility adequacy. 18. 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 Board during its advertised public hearing. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 16 of 20 August 22, 2024 DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD was approved via Ordinance 92-10, and amended most recently by Ordinance 2017-15, with no deviations approved to date. The petitioner is proposing two deviations. The deviations are directly extracted from the draft PUD Ordinance, Section VI, and apply only to Parcel 11 of the Master Plan. The petitioner’s justification and staff analysis/recommendation are listed below. Deviation # 1: (Landscape Buffers) Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 A, which requires Type B landscape buffers between separate residential and commercial development, to instead allow for 5-foot “Type A” landscape buffers on the north, south and west side of Parcel 11 and for a 15-foot Type B buffer on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside of the FPL easement in the median area on the east side of the building in Parcel 11. This deviation applies to the reuse of the existing building on Parcel 11 only and does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished or if the existing adjacent parking lot is redeveloped with a new use. Petitioner’s Justification: The Applicant is requesting this buffer deviation applicable to Parcel 11 for the reuse of the hotel for affordable multifamily dwellings. The subject property is currently developed as a Super 8 Motel and 5-foot Type A buffers were required for commercial uses in the PUD. This deviation proposes to maintain the buffer standards that were in place for the north, south and east property boundaries when the motel was developed, and which now include mature vegetation. Additionally, the easternmost portion of the property is encumbered by an FPL easement and mature vegetation exists within the median area on the east side of the building. The deviation would also require additional planting in this area to satisfy the requirements for a 15-foot Type B buffer. Adjacent properties to the south and east of the property include low intensity storage and parking uses. This deviation reflects the fact that the parcel will not change and differs from traditional multi-family housing which includes yards, common green space, or lanais and balconies which interface directly with external surrounding uses with higher levels of commercial traffic. Approval of the deviation provides significant cost savings to delivering bonafide affordable housing to the market. LDC section 4.06.02.A notes that existing landscaping shall be brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible when the vehicular use areas is altered or expanded, the building square footage is changed, or a use is discontinued for one year. The transition of the property to allow for multi-family uses will not require alteration or expansion of the vehicular use area, or any change to the building square footage, and there has not been a discontinuance of use. In addition to maintaining the intent of the Landscape Code, this deviation maximizes the use and benefit of existing mature landscaping on site and facilitates the rapid conversion of units to permanent multifamily dwelling units. For these reasons, the requested deviation will not have a detrimental effect on the public 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 17 of 20 August 22, 2024 health, safety or welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: In May 2023, the petitioner indicated during the Pre-Application meeting for this PUD Amendment that use of the motel as dwellings had begun with some tenants being workers of local businesses and some tenants being individuals displaced by Hurricane Ian. Therefore, staff finds that there has been a discontinuance of the Super 8 Motel use for a period of one year or more and a request for a change of use has been made. Under these circumstances, the existing landscaping shall be brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible per LDC Section 4.06.02.A. The proposed deviation to allow for 5-foot “Type A” landscape buffers on the north, south and west side of Parcel 11 is not “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations” as required by LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h. Below is a view of the north property line abutting the I-75 on-ramp, which does not currently provide the concentration of trees and shrubs typically required for parking lots, let alone residences. The landscape buffer standards that apply to properties developing in accordance with CBIIZO standards should also be applied to this property to the greatest extent possible. This accomplishes the intent of the LDC to maintain a consistent appearance at the I-75 interchange (Activity Center #9) that serves as a gateway to Collier County, and it accomplishes the intent of the LDC to provide higher degrees of buffering and screening for residential development abutting more intense uses, such as an Interstate highway. To bring the existing landscaping into conformity with the required buffering for residential uses adjacent to commercial uses and the interstate to the maximum extent possible, staff recommends DEVIATION #1 BE MODIFIED as follows: (PROPOSED MODIFIED) Deviation # 1: (Landscape Buffers) seeks relief from LDC Section 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 18 of 20 August 22, 2024 4.06.02 A, which requires landscape buffers between residential and commercial development, to instead allow the following: a. The eastern buffer may be accomplished by providing the vegetation required for a Type B buffer in the “median” area shown on Exhibit E-1 provided that the land encumbered by the FPL easement remains undeveloped and not used for parking. In the alternative, a minimum 10-foot wide Type B buffer shall be provided along the eastern boundary line of Parcel 11 contingent upon agreement from FPL. This applies to the reuse of the existing building on Parcel 11 only and does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished or if the existing parking lot located in the FPL easement is redeveloped with a new use. b. Vegetation required for a Type B buffer shall be provided where Parcel 11 is adjacent to the Eastern and Southern boundary of the commercial parcel to the West (Comfort Inn). c. In addition to the requirements of Section 4.06.00, adjacent to the 1-75 right of way line, the Type D buffer shall be enhanced as follows: 1. The required number of trees for a Type D buffer shall be supplemented by an additional palm or canopy tree planting in the amount of 25%; and 2. All required trees shall be a minimum of 12 feet in height at installation. Deviation # 2: (Parking Space Requirements) Relief from LDC Section 4.05.04 G, which requires one parking space per multi-family dwelling unit plus 0.5 spaces per each efficiency unit as well as additional parking for recreational facilities and other common uses identified in LDC Section 4.05.04 G Table 17, to allow for a total of 165 parking spaces to satisfy the parking requirement within Parcel 11. This deviation does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished. Petitioner’s Justification: The Applicant is requesting this parking deviation for the reuse of the existing building on Parcel 11. The current hotel use will transition to a multi-family building with limited site work. This deviation will allow for the existing parking spaces to continue to serve the residents on the property. All recreation facilities serving the residents are integrated with the development and not intended to serve the general public. Additionally, all residences are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and located in the same building. As a result, no additional parking spaces will be needed for residents to utilize the recreation facilities. This deviation is only proposed to apply to the reuse of the existing building. If the existing building is demolished for redevelopment of the site, the parking space requirements in effect at that time would apply. For these reasons, the requested deviation will not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The requested deviation will provide the required 1.5 parking spaces per unit (1.5 spaces per unit 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 19 of 20 August 22, 2024 x 110 units = 165 parking spaces required). Because the recreational facilities and other common uses are small-scale and not likely to generate additional traffic or require residents to travel by car to access, the deviation to allow relief from the additional parking requirement for recreational facilities and other common uses identified in LDC Section 4.05.04 G Table 17, to instead require no additional parking for recreational facilities and other common uses accessory to multi -family dwellings within Parcel 11. Staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that the deviation can be approved “without detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community” in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, and the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations” per LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on June 26, 2024, at Sheperd of the Glades Church, Hanson Hall, 6020 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Naples, FL 34113. The meeting was not attended by any members of the public. See Attachment D for the NIM documentation. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on August 26, 2024. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval of the PUDA, subject to the approval of the companion GMPA (PL20230007876) with an effective date linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Increase the commitment from 22.7% to at least 30% of the residential units to be set aside as affordable, consistent with previous Board of County Commissioner policy. The 30% requirement would result in an additional eight (8) affordable set-aside units (4 at 80%AMI + 4 at 100%AMI). 2. Modify the language and conditions of Deviation 1 to read as follows to bring the existing landscaping into conformity with the required buffering for residential uses adjacent to commercial uses and the interstate: Deviation # 1: (Landscape Buffers) seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 A, which requires landscape buffers between residential and commercial development, to instead allow the following: a. The eastern buffer may be accomplished by providing the vegetation required for a Type B buffer in the “median” area shown on Exhibit E-1 provided that the land encumbered by the FPL easement remains undeveloped and not used for parking. In the alternative, a minimum 10-foot wide Type B buffer shall be provided along the eastern boundary line of Parcel 11 contingent upon agreement from FPL. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PUDA-PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center Page 20 of 20 August 22, 2024 This applies to the reuse of the existing building on Parcel 11 only and does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished or if the existing parking lot located in the FPL easement is redeveloped with a new use. b. Vegetation required for a Type B buffer shall be provided where Parcel 11 is adjacent to the Eastern and Southern boundary of the commercial parcel to the West (Comfort Inn). c. In addition to the requirements of Section 4.06.00, adjacent to the 1-75 right of way line, the Type D buffer shall be enhanced as follows: 1. The required number of trees for a Type D buffer shall be supplemented by an additional palm or canopy tree planting in the amount of 25%; and 2. All required trees shall be a minimum of 12 feet in height at installation. Attachments: A) Draft Ordinance B) Exhibit B – Super 8 C) Application/Backup Materials D) NIM Documentation 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA - Staff Report2b [Revision 1] (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) [24-CPS-02446/1862436/1]39 1 of 2 Tollgate Commercial Center – PL20230007874 8/22/24 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-10, AS AMENDED, THE TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), WITHIN THE COLLIER BOULEVARD/INTERSTATE 75 INNOVATION ZONE OVERLAY (CBIIZO), BY AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 110 MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PARCEL 11 OF THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, “A” PARCELS, AS SHOWN ON THE PUD MASTER PLAN, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL USES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BECK BOULEVARD AT 3880 TOLLGATE BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (PL20230007874) WHEREAS, on February 11, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 92-10, which established the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (the ”Tollgate PUD”); and WHEREAS, the Tollgate PUD was subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 93-91, 15- 49 and 17-15; and WHEREAS, K2 Housing Naples, LLC represented by Jem Frantz, AICP, RVI Planning & Landscape Architecture and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koestner, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to further amend the Tollgate PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Document. Exhibit “A”, the PUD Document, attached to Ordinance No. 92-10, as amended, is hereby amended and replaced with the Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein. 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. 2024-____ becomes effective. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) [24-CPS-02446/1862436/1]39 2 of 2 Tollgate Commercial Center – PL20230007874 8/22/24 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of ____________________, 2024. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: _______________________ By: _____________________________ Deputy Clerk Chris Hall, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: ______________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A – PUD Document and Master Plan 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 1 of 31 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PREPARED BY: RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUTIE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 (239) 435-3535 And ROBERT L. DUANE ROBERT L. DUANE & ASSOCIATES, A.I.C.P 4880 TAMARIND RIDGE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34119 (239) 353-4167 JEM FRANTZ, A.I.C.P. RVI PLANNING + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 405-7777 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC: _________ DATE APPROVED BY BCC: _________ ORDINANCE NUMBER: _________ AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL: _________ EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 2 of 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLE 3 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 4 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 5 - 9 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 10 - 12 SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN FOR PARCEL "A" 13 – 18 13 - 17 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS 19 - 23 FOR PARCEL "B" 18 - 22 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 24 – 28 23 – 27 SECTION VI DEVIATIONS 29 EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 3 of 31 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT “A” PUD Master Plan TABLE I Schedule of Development EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 4 of 31 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 100.23 acres of property in Collier County and within an Interchange Activity Center, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as Tollgate Commercial Center, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan and its provisions for Interchange Activity Center development. This compliance includes: Activity Center Project 1. The subject property is located in an area identified as an Interchange Activity Center in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth management Plan for Collier County. 2. Interstate Activity Centers are the preferred locations for the concentration of commercial and mixed use development activities. 3. The subject tract is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of CR-951 and CR- 84. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of commercial/industrial activities. 4. The project is in compliance with all applicable County regulations. In addition, the project complies with the Growth Management Plan with the adoption of the Plan amendment which allows for specifically approved heavy business/light industrial uses, residential uses, and mixed-use developments to be developed in designated interstate activity centers. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by the County. 6. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers and the proposed development standards contained herein. 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open spaces and naturalized open features which serve as project amenities. 8. The project shall be developed in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan and the existing PUD document as approved. In addition, the project shall be developed in accordance with all Collier County regulations in effect at the time of Final SDP or building permit application. 9. Bind the owner's successor in title to any commitments made under in this document. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 5 of 31 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of Tollgate Commercial Center. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Commencing at the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida; thence along the east line of said Section 35 North 1 ° - 56' -55" West 200.14 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); thence along said north right-of-way line, North 89° -45' -01" West 331.23 feet to a point of intersection of said north right-of-way line of State Road 93 (I-75), and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley) on the following five courses: 1) North 89° -45' -0 I" West 2398.66 feet; 2) South 89° -56' -16" West 1547.43 feet; 3) North 80° -43' -58" West 709.38 feet; 4) North 39° -52' -42" West 209.91 feet; 5) North 10° -24' -33" West 209.94 Feet to a point on the East Limited Access, right- of way line of State Road 93 (1-75); thence continue along said Limited Access, right-of-way line of State 93 (I-75) on the following nine courses: 1) North 3° -19' -52" East 285.34 feet; 2) North 23° -37' -28" East 149.83 feet; 3) North 64° -12' -39" East 149.83 feet; 4) North 86° -37' -0 l" East 778.54 feet; 5) South 87° -55' -12" East 318.82 feet; 6) South 78° -44' -38" East 318.32 feet; 7) South 74° -09' -17" East 1199.30 feet; 8) South 73° -00' -33" East 1904.96 feet; 9) southeasterly 233.67 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 116.2116 feet, subtended by a chord which bears South 75° -35' -07'' East 223.67 feet to the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; being a part of south ½, Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; subject to easements and restrictions of records; containing 69.40 acres of land more or less; bearings are based on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map for State Road 93 (1-75). EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 6 of 31 ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: Description of part of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and part of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida COMMENCE at an iron pipe marking the Northeast Corner of said Section 2; thence North 89° 45' 01" West, 337.83 feet along the North line of said Section 2 for a POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 00° 02' 19" East, 59.98 feet; thence South 89° 57' 41" West, 2,300.70 feet; thence on a course traversing from said Section 35, South 89° 56' 02" West, 2,448.74 feet; thence North 45° 46' 16" West, 71.58 feet; thence North 01° 28' 34" West, 705.25 feet to the Easterly Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 951 (Section 03175-2409); thence South I 0° 24' 33" East, 209.94 feet; thence South 39° 52' 42" East, 209.91 feet; thence South 80° 43" 58" East, 709.38 feet; thence North 89° 56' 16" East, 1,547.43 feet; thence South 89° 45' 0I" East, 2,396.67 feet to the Southerly Existing Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 93 (03175-2409); thence South 00° 02' 19" East, 200.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Less and except the East 100.00 feet thereof. Containing 30.835 acres, more or less. All of Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase One, as recorded in Plat Book 16 Page 1, public records of Collier County, Florida; and All of Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase Two, as recorded in Plat Book 18 Pages 23-24, public records of Collier County, Florida; and All of Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase Three, as recorded in Plat Book 22 Pages 95- 100, public records of Collier County, Florida. The entire project area is 100.235 acres. Number of acres devoted to various categories of land use: Development area 70.72 Water management area 17.84 Road Right-of-Way 6.7 F.P.L Easement 4.98 GENERAL LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE Tollgate Commercial Center is located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 1-75/CR- 951 interchange, approximately five miles east of the Naples Airport at the eastern terminus of Davis Boulevard (SR 84). EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 7 of 31 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The ownership of this property on April 25th, 2017 is Toll Gate Naples LLC, and Sky Angel Center LLC. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 8 of 31 1.43 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is designated Interstate Interchange Activity Center on the Collier County Growth Management Plan. B. CURRENT ZONING: The project site is currently zoned PUD. C. EXISTING LAND USE: At the present time the site is unoccupied except for a 104 room motel. D. ADJACENT LAND USE: The adjacent lands are predominately vacant at the present time. The northwest and southwest corners of CR 951 and SR 84 are presently used as gasoline service stations. The properties north of the I-75 right-of-way and the properties south of CR 84 are vacant. 1.54 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The elevation of the project site varies from 9.8 feet to 11.6 feet. Tollgate Commercial Center lies within Zone X as identified on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. Zone X is identified as those areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood. This means that no development will be occurring within the 100-year flood prone area. A. SOILS: There are three types of soil cover on the project site. They are Arzell fine sands, Keri fine sands and Pompano fine sands. The distribution of these soil types is shown in Map E. B. VEGETATIVE COVER: A breakdown of the vegetative cover of the project area is as follows: VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGE Pineland 1.00 Saw Palmetto/Rusty Lyonia 4.21 Transitional Zone/Cypress 29.40 Functional Wetland 9.40 Cabbage Palm Heads .30 Improved/Platted 30.67 Cleared/Filled Unplatted Former R/W 21.66 F.P.L. R/W 3.60 TOTAL 100.24 EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 9 of 31 There are no unique features of the vegetation. All species and associations are "typical" for soil types common to pine flatwoods of level sandy areas of Collier County. C. WILDLIFE: Wildlife, observed or noted from tracks, nests, etc. consisted of the representative species, such as raccoon, snakes and wading birds, which normally occur in a habitat such as the Tollgate Commercial Center site. No endangered or threatened species were observed on the site. D. HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: John Beriault, Field Representative of the S.W. Florida Archaeological Society, searched for such sites and believes none exist on the tract. E. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT: Waste water treatment is being provided by the Collier County Sewage Treatment System. Temporary on-site wastewater treatment facilities for which all necessary permits have been granted may be installed during any period of time in which sewage treatment service is not available from Collier County. F. WATER MANAGEMENT: The Water Management Plan provides for site runoff transport to a system of hardwood forest, marsh, and open water ponds. The Water Management Plan is designed to meet SFWMD and County criteria. Minimum road elevations and discharge control will be designed for the 25-year, 3-day rainfall event. The finished floor elevations will be established by the 100 year-zero discharge design event. G. WATER SUPPLY: Potable water is being supplied by the Collier County Water- Sewer District. Non-potable water utilized for landscape irrigation and other non-human consumptive uses will be procured from on-site wells, or from the County treated sewage effluent distribution system. H. SOLID WASTE: Solid waste is being disposed of at the Collier County Sanitary Landfill. Collection is provided by Waste Management of Collier County, a franchised hauler. I. ELECTRICITY: Electricity is being provided by the Florida Power & Light Company, Inc. J. POLICE PROTECTION: Police protection is provided by the Collier County Sheriff Department. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 10 of 31 K. FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection is provided by the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. L. TELEPHONE: Telephone service is provided by United Telephone of Florida. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 11 of 31 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally described the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations, requirements and references for development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall be in accordance with the contents of this document. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless specifically waived through variance or waiver provisions within the PUD, those applicable regulations not otherwise provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect. E. Each tract, as identified on the Master Plan, shall require the submittal, review and subsequent approval of a Site Development Plan prior to the issuance of a Final Local Development Order. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Master Plan is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT Project development is underway and will continue to build-out. The following schedule indicates the anticipated start and completion dates for the various project development Phases. Phase boundaries are indicated on the Master Development Plan. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 12 of 31 TABLE I % OF PHASE ACREAGE SITE START COMPLETE I 54.51 54.4 1988 1993 II 26.44 26.4 1992 1995 III 19.29 19.2 1993 1996 TOTALS 100.24 100.0 A. Table I is a schedule of Development, with the approximate acreage of the total project indicated. The arrangement of these land areas are shown on the PUD Master Development Plan (Exhibit “A”). The Master Development Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. Design criteria and layout is illustrative on the Master Development Plan and other exhibits supporting this project. It shall be understood that these exhibits are to remain flexible so the final design may satisfy development objectives and be consistent with the project development, as set forth in this document. Minor changes to the master plan shall be subject to the provisions of Section 10.02.13.E. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual requirements for drive patterns, parking layout and requirements, and development parcel size and configuration. B. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit “A”, such utility and other easements as are necessary shall be established within or along the various tracts. 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, for all or part of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, and the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Exhibit “A”, PUD Master Development Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, if applicable, shall be submitted for any area to be subdivided. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 13 of 31 C. The development of any tract or parcel contemplating fee simple ownership of land shall be required to submit and receive approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in conformance with Section 10.02.04. - Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats of the Collier County Land Development Code, prior to the submittal of construction plans and plat for any portion of the tract or parcel. D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. E. The developer or subsequent owner of any platted parcel or platted tract shall, prior to application for a building permit, submit a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the tract or parcel to the Development Services Department for approval for applicable development subject to the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section 10.02.13.E. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.6 LIMITATIONS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL As provided for within Section 10.02.13.D. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.7 POLLING PLACES As provided for in Section 2.01.04- Polling Places of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.8 PUD MONITORING An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 10.02.13.F. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 14 of 31 SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas so designated on Exhibit “A”, as “A” Parcels. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL “A” It is the intent of this document that “A” designated development parcels be used for commercial purposes which serve the motoring public using Interstate I-75 as well as providing limited commercial goods and services of an area-wide nature for the Naples, Marco Island, Golden Gate and the Immokalee urban areas. Further it is the intent of this document that “A” designated development parcels shall be used in accordance with all current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 3.3 COMMERCIAL USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: (a) Automobile service stations including engine tune-ups and minor repairs, and car wash facilities which are accessory uses. (b) Banks and financial institutions, business and professional offices. (c) Cocktail lounges and commercial entertainment. (d) Convention and exhibition halls. (e) Department stores; drug stores; dry cleaning shops and dry goods stores. (f) Electronic games and furniture sales. (g) Ice cream shops and dairy drive-in stores. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 15 of 31 (h) Motels; hotels and other transient lodging facilities. (i) Research and design labs; restaurants and fast food restaurants. (j) Shopping centers. (k) Souvenir stores and stationery stores. (I) Supermarkets (m) Variety stores; vehicle rental-automobile and U-haul type of vehicles and equipment including outside display; veterinary offices and clinics; no outside kenneling. (n) Any other commercial or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. (b) Caretakers residence. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures (a) Car wash facilities which are principal uses. (b) Permitted uses with less than one thousand (1,000) square feet gross floor area in the principal structure. 3.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in Section 3.3., the following principal uses are permitted on the property described on Tracts 7, 8, 9, on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A. -Amusements and Recreational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999): limited to: - Gymnastics, Instruction, Judo Instruction, Karate Instruction, Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction, and Day Camps. -Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) -Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 16 of 31 -Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) -Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) -Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 8331) -Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) -Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 8621) -Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) -Social Services (SIC Code 8322): Excluding: Alcoholism Counseling, Non-Residential Except Medical Treatment, Offender Rehabilitation Agencies, Parole Offices, Probation Offices, and Offender self-help agencies. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 3.3.2. Residential Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted. 1. In addition to the uses set forth in Section 3.3., 110 multi-family rental dwellings are permitted on the property described on Parcel 11 on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A, as an alternative to Commercial Uses in Section 3.3, subject to the following restrictions: a) Twenty-five (25) units (collectively referred to as “Set Aside Units”) shall be restricted as follows: 1) Twelve (12) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. 2) Thirteen (13) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. b) There will be no income restrictions on the remaining units on Tract 11. However, the remaining units will be rent restricted at a rent equal to or less than rents permitted for households whose incomes are up to and including 120% of the AMI for Collier County. These rent restrictions will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit following conversion of the hotel unit to a multi-family unit. Rent limits may be adjusted annually based on the rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 17 of 31 c) The Set Aside Units shall be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first Set Aside Unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. d) By way of example, the 2024 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits for Collier County are: 2024 Collier County Median Household Income $104,300 Income Limit by Number of People in Unit Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms in Unit Percentage Category 1 2 0 1 2 30% Extremely Low $21,930 $25,050 $548 $587 $704 50% Very Low $36,550 $41,750 $913 $978 $1,173 60% n/a $43,860 $50,100 $1,096 $1,174 $1,408 80% Low $58,480 $66,800 $1,462 $1,566 $1,878 120% Moderate $87,720 $100,200 $2,193 $2,349 $2,817 140% Gap $102,340 $116,900 $2,558 $2,740 $3,286 Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. e) Each Set Aside Unit shall initially be held vacant and advertised for employees of Moorings, Incorporated, and affiliates, or other health care providers, teachers, first responders, hospitality workers and government employees for a minimum of 90 days prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that unit. If any units remain available for rent following the expiration of this 90-day period, then the unit may also be offered to the general public at the rent restricted rate. 1) Each Set Aside Unit will be held vacant and advertised for a minimum of 90 days from the date the unit is first built and for forty-five (45) days after said unit becomes available again for rental, unless it is rented to an income qualifying resident. In the event that no individual identified in subsection A.1.a) above rents the available Set Aside Unit, then the unit may also be offered to the general public, but shall remain a Set Aside Unit and be rent and income restricted accordingly. 2) At a minimum, advertising will consist of providing written notice to the Collier County Community and Human Services Division and the human resource departments for local hospitals, the Collier County Public School District, Collier County Government, other municipalities within Collier County, all EMS and fire districts, and the Collier County Sheriff's Office. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 18 of 31 f) There shall be onsite management at the PUD property at all times. g) No more than two individuals shall be allowed to reside/occupy in a unit at any given time. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with residential units. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard-Twenty-five (25) feet plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. (b) Side Yard - None or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for motels, hotels, multi-family units, and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. (c) Rear Yard -Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront - Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal water line of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on the ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted areas for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. a. Minimum Floor Area for Residential Units: 250 square feet. Pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 13 of Ordinance No. 2023-65 as amended and as codified in Chapter 22, Article IV of the Code of Laws and EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 19 of 31 Ordinances, the minimum unit size for a multi-family dwelling unit is 250 square feet for two occupants. New multi-family units, including redevelopment, shall comply with the minimum size requirements in county ordinances. No more than two individuals shall be allowed to reside/occupy in a unit at any given time. (6) Maximum Density: a. Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotels, motels or transient lodging facilities. b. Residential density: a maximum of 110 multi-family residential rental units may be located on Parcel 11 only (22 dwelling units per acre) as shown on the Master Plan Exhibit A. (7) Distance between Principal Structures on same Site: one-half the sum of the heights. (8) Signs: As required by Section 5.06.00 - SIGN REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSSIFICATION of the Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Section 4.05.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: a. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR-84 and CR-951: CR- 84, 5 feet and CR-951, 10 feet Type D Buffer with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.4. b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with Type A Buffer pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.1. c. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). d. All landscaping requirements of Section 4.06.00 - Landscaping, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 20 of 31 e. Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in SDP applications for each individual development site. f. Landscape buffers for Parcel 11 as shown on the Master Plan, Exhibit A: 5- foot Type A buffers on the north, south and west side of Parcel 11 and a 15- foot Type B buffer on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside of the FPL easement in the median area on the east side of the building in Parcel 11 (See Deviation #1). If the existing building on Parcel 11 is redeveloped all landscaping requirements of LDC section 4.06.00 in effect at the time of redevelopment shall be applicable. (11) Outside Merchandise Storage and displaying: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or by an approved Site Development Plan, outside storage or display of merchandise is prohibited. (12) Uses set forth in Section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, shall meet the standards of the “Activity Center #9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.” Existing buildings and structures, as shown on an SDP approved before the date of adoption of this Ordinance, may remain as non -conforming until redevelopment. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 21 of 31 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial/Industrial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas designated on Exhibit "A" as "B" Parcels. 4.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL “B” It is the intent of this document that “B” designated development parcels be used for both “A” designated uses and for the sale, service, transportation, storage and distribution of goods and service to the traveling public on 1-75 and to the citizens of the area which can be served via the access road systems. A major function of these parcels is to serve as a focal point for the arrival of goods from other points of the region and country and then be processed for distribution to the local trade market. It is intended that inside storage and warehousing along with limited assembly and manufacturing wholly within a building and not obnoxious by reason of emission of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, noise or vibration be permitted. Further, it is the intent of this document that “B” designated Parcels be used in accordance with all of the current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document or as may be approved otherwise by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. 4.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part of other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (a) Any principal use or structure permitted on “A” designated development parcels. (b) Assembly operations in an enclosed building. (c) Building supplies and contractors storage facilities; bulk storage yards not including junk or salvage yards. (d) Car wash, communications service and equipment repair. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 22 of 31 (e) Freight movers and storage. (f) Laboratories, research, design and testing; laundries; lawn maintenance shops and plant nurseries; light manufacturing or processing (include food processing but not abattoir; packaging or fabricating in a completely enclosed building). (g) Miscellaneous uses such as express office; telephone exchange; motor or bus or truck or other transportation terminal and related uses; motorcycle sales, service and repair; museums and tourist attractions. (h) New and used car sales, service and repair including outside display. (i) Offices, general purpose. (j) Warehousing, wholesaling, storage and distributing establishments and similar uses. (k) Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: (1) Any accessory use or structure customarily associated with the permitted uses and structures. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures: (1) Attached residence in conjunction with a business - one (1) per business. (2) Permitted use with less than 1,000 square feet gross floor areas in the principal building. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 23 of 31 4.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in Section 4.3., the following principal uses are permitted on Tracts 16-20, and 24-25 on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A. -Amusements and Recreational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999): limited to: - Gymnastics, Instruction, Judo Instruction, Karate Instruction, Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction, and Day Camps. -Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) -Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) -Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) -Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) -Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 8331) -Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) -Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 8621) -Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) -Social Services (SIC Code 8322): Excluding: Alcoholism Counseling, Non-Residential Except Medical Treatment, Offender Rehabilitation Agencies, Parole Offices, Probation Offices, and Offender self-help agencies. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard -Twenty-five (25) feet. (b) Side Yard - None, or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for hotels, motels and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. Attached residences shall be treated as non-residential. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 24 of 31 (c) Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront- Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal level of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted uses for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. (6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotel, motel and transient lodging facilities. (7) Distance between Structures: One-half the sum of the heights. (8) Signs: As required by Section 5.06.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Section 4.05.00 Off-Street Parking and Loading of the Collier County Land Development Code. (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: a. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR-84 and CR-951: CR- 84, 5 feet and CR-951, 10 feet Type D Buffer with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.4 b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with Type A Buffer pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.1. c. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). d. All landscape requirements of Section 4.06.00 Landscape, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 25 of 31 e. Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in S DP applications for each individual development site. (11) Merchandise Storage and Display: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or an approved Site Development Plan, or of a nature which is permitted generally, outside storage or display or merchandise is prohibited. (12) Uses set forth in Section 4.3.1, shall meet the standards of the “Activity Center #9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.” Existing buildings and structures, as shown on an SDP approved before the date of adoption of this Ordinance, may remain as non-conforming until redevelopment. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 26 of 31 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for the development of the project. 5.2 PUD MASTER PLAN A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. B. The design criteria and layout illustrated in the Master Development Plan shall be interpreted as preliminary and understood to be flexible so that the final design may best satisfy the project and comply with all applicable requirements. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to Staff approval. C. All necessary easements, dedication, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. D. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structure, locations of all improved facilities and location and treatment of buffer areas. 5.3 ENGINEERING A. The developer and all subsequent petitioners are hereby placed on notice that they shall be required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This includes, but is not limited to, Preliminary Subdivision Plats, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result in the issuance of a final or final local development order. B. The project shall be platted in accordance with the Section 10.02.04 - Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats to define the right-of-way, tracts, and water management areas as shown on the master plan. C. Landscaping shall not be placed within the water management areas unless specifically approved by project Review Services. D. Provide a landscape buffer along the entire southern property line in accordance with Section with Section 3.4 (10) and 4.4 (10) of this PUD. E. Should the South Florida Water Management District, during its permit review process, require a natural vegetative buffer be created between the lots and any jurisdictional wetland Preserve and/or Conservation tract, the buffer shall not be located within the boundaries of the lot(s) unless otherwise waived by the South EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 27 of 31 Florida Water Management District. It shall be created as a separate platted tract or as a buffer Easement over an expanded limit of the Preserve tracts, which would be dedicated as Preserve/Drainage tracts, to include the buffer within the Preserve tract. If the buffer is located within a separate tract, that tract shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and if necessary, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All Preserve buffer easements or buffer tracts shall be created in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 704.06, Florida Statutes. F. Land Development Code, Section 6.06.01 - Street System Requirements Dead end streets maximum length not to exceed 1,000 feet: Waived to a maximum length of 1,050 feet. G. Land Development Regulations, Section 6.06.01 - Street System Requirements- All local streets within commercial subdivision shall be designed according to the typical section for collector streets contained in the County Standards. Waived subject to right-of-way and other dimension requirements for the roads to meet local street standards and the pavements structure to meet collector standards. H. Land Development Code, Section 6.01.02 - Easements: Utility easements will be provided as needed with Collier County utility easements (C.U.E.) at a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. I. Land Development Code, Section 6.06.02 - Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathways Requirements. Not waived since existing phase already has sidewalks and it will maintain the continuity for pedestrian's access purposes. 5.4 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 134 Utilities, Section 134-47, Policies and Standards, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. C. The on-site water distribution system to serve the project must be connected to the existing water main on Tollhouse Drive and/or CR-84 rights-of-way consistent with the main sizing requirements specified in the County's Water Master Plan and extended throughout the project. During design of these facilities, dead end mains shall be eliminated by looping the internal pipeline network. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 28 of 31 D. The utility construction documents for the project's sewerage system shall be prepared so that all sewage flowing to the County's master pump station is transmitted by one (1) main on-site pump station. Due to the design and configuration of the master pump station, flow by gravity into the station will not be possible. The Developer's Engineer shall meet with the County Staff prior to commencing preparation of construction drawings, so that all aspects of the sewerage system design can be coordinated with the County's sewer master plan. E. The existing off-site water facilities of the District must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project and reinforced as required, if necessary, consistent with the County's Water Master Plan to insure that the District's water system can hydraulically provide a sufficient quantity of water to meet the anticipated demands of the project and the District's existing committed capacity. F. The existing off-site sewage transmission facilities of the district must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project improved as required outside the project boundary to provide adequate capacity to transport the additional wastewater generated without adverse impact to the existing transmission facilities. 5.5 WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING A. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 03-37, as amended. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lakes(s) in accordance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Excavation. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DEP and USACE permits. D. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum ½ inch of dry pre- treatment on site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. 5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL A. All jurisdictional wetlands and mitigation areas on-site shall be designated as conservation/preserve tracts or easements on all construction pians and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants similar to or as per Chapter 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 29 of 31 B. In the case of mitigation off-site any purchase must be within the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) or the Corkscrew Regional Ecological Watershed Lands (CREW) or other areas approved for mitigation by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The ultimate transfer of deed(s) of land(s) to Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands must occur prior to final construction plan/plat approvals. C. Control structures on-site shall be constructed in accordance with State and Federal permits. 5.7 WATER MANAGEMENT A. Detailed paving, grading, and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Excavation. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DEP and USACE permits. D. A copy of SFWMD Permit or Early Work Permit is required prior to construction plan approval. E. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum ½ inch of dry pre- treatment on- site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. 5.8 TRANSPORTATION A. The final location of major access points along Davis Boulevard shall be determined during the approval of the Final Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan. Such major access points shall provide primary access and internal road circulation and shall typically include turn land improvements based on projected traffic conditions. Secondary access points between Davis Boulevard and individual parcels shall be prohibited unless approved consistent with the Final Subdivision Plat as may be amended and with the following access control criteria: 1. safety 2. proper geometric design 3. effects on the capacity of Davis Boulevard 4. traffic volumes using the proposed access point EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 30 of 31 5. other roadways providing access to the site 6. the combined effect of access to any and all tracts both within this PUD and adjacent PUD's 7. spacing of access points Collier County reserves the right to close any approved secondary access to and from Davis Boulevard should it at any time be found to create a traffic hazard or to adversely affect the capacity or level of service of that roadway. B. The road impact fee shall be as set forth in Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 74, as amended, and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners. C. Access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee credits and shall be in place before any certificates of occupancy are issued. D. All traffic control devices used shall conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as required by Chapter 316.0747 Florida Statutes. E. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy following conversion of the hotel unit to a multi-family unit for Parcel 11, a sidewalk will be constructed from Tollgate Boulevard to the building. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 31 of 31 SECTION VI DEVIATIONS As to Parcel 11 as shown on the Master Plan attached hereto: DEVIATION #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.A, which requires Type B landscape buffers to separate residential and commercial development, to allow for 5-foot Type A buffers on the north, south and west side of Parcel 11 and for a 15-foot Type B buffer on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside of the FPL easement in the median area on the east side of the building in Parcel 11. This deviation applies to the reuse of the existing building on Parcel 11 only and does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished or if the existing adjacent parking lot is redeveloped with a new use. DEVIATION #2 seeks relief from LDC section 4.05.04 G, which requires 1 parking space per multi-family dwelling unit plus 0.5 spaces per each efficiency unit as well as additional parking for recreational facilities and other common uses identified in LDC section 4.05.04 G Table 17, to allow for a total of 165 parking spaces to satisfy the parking requirement within Parcel 11. This deviation does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished. EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) MAF'IiMASTER 6;DEVELOPMENT PLAN rTOLLGATE Z COMMERCIAL CENTER AJanuary, 1991 oo8 pW rW1Zti• .. 7.WaJ 1 ill1 g .,. ir1 jam ty o?oao t tir}alt; rn t. WaV ti• 0: p Yd at NA w F t,+ 14:I;M.: AI IX DRIVE 1fix: v~, t, C F yn W 4rI W : 1.' 0 •4115:: _ 11111 a. gr t, F Ma w.w •4 4HIII Li cz 0.y , ct C 1 1ii ti. BUSH BOULEVARD-Q C 1:ti j IL F1'&I.F.AS F'.V,FVT t t g_ W go A fil re W.§ a W TOLLGATE BLVD. W N r t ( t W F e a h3 t Q tom Z L1 4 ' 4 MIN C. R. 951 VIEW .. C r.1 EXHIBIT B Parcel 11 will provide a maximum of 110 multi-family residential dwelling units1Deviation ##2EXHIBIT A Revised May 16, 2024PL202300078741Note:"A" and "B" Parcels will provide goods and services to motorists andarea residents. Additionally, "B" Parcels will accommodate service,assembly, wholesale and related Heavy Business Uses.Parcel 11 will provide a maximum of 110 multi-familyresidential dwelling units as an alternative to commercialuses.EXHIBIT A 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance 082224 (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Att B - Super 8 Buffer Exhibit B (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment Application August 19, 2024 PREPARED FOR: K2 Housing Naples, LLC SUBMITTED TO: Collier County, Zoning Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Table of Contents Contents Cover Letter & Narrative Statement Completed Application Pre-Application Meeting Notes Affidavit of Authorization Property Ownership Disclosure Covenant of Unified Control Completed Addressing Checklist List of Owners & Warranty Deed Boundary Survey Statement of Utility Provisions TIS School Concurrency Application Original PUD Document Revised PUD Document Revised Master Plan Schedule of Deviations & Justifications Evaluation Criteria Aerial Map & Surrounding Uses Zoning and Future Land Use Maps Zoning Verification Letter Expedited Review Form 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment COVER LETTER & NARRATIVE STATEMENT 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture • 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Sutie 305 • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 • 239.405.7777 • www.rviplanning.com November 28, 2023 REVISED March 2023 Mr. Ray Bellows Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 RE: PL20220003892 - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD/DRI PUD Amendment (PUDA) Dear Mr. Bellows, Enclosed for your review is an application for a PUD amendment regarding the Super 8 Hotel, a 5+/- acre project located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), north of Beck Boulevard with direct access to Tollgate Boulevard in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. Background and Proposed Development In 1992, the Property was rezoned from PUD to the “Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,” allowing for commercial and light industrial uses on approximately 100+/- acres in three phases. Since that time, the PUD has been amended several times, most recently by Ordinance 2017-15. The subject property is located in Interchange Activity Center #9 in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan for Collier County. The Interchange Activity Center includes a concentration of commercial, industrial, residential, and mixed-use developments. The 5-acre subject property operated as a 104-room hotel until it was purchased by the Applicant in 2022. The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD to facilitate the reuse of the existing Super 8 Hotel into a multifamily development to allow for permanent residences within the existing building. The change will modify the schedule of uses to allow 110 multifamily residential dwellings on Parcel 11 only. Two deviations from landscaping and parking requirements are proposed to provide flexibility in the reuse of the property and to address existing conditions and constraints on the property. No other changes to the approved commercial uses, development standards or other development tracts within the PUD are included in this request. The proposed amendment is limited to adding residential uses and two deviations to the PUD. Prior to this request, the Applicant purchased the property only eight days before Hurricane Ian devastated the County in September of 2022. Despite the Applicant’s original business plan to re-open the hotel a couple of months later in November of 2022, given the devastation caused by the hurricane, the Applicant spurred into action and spent significant resources to immediately make temporary living spaces for Collier residents who were displaced by Hurricane Ian and to first responders – these groups included Naples Community Hospital staff, and other essential workers from Moorings Park employees and local small business workers, hospitality workers and disaster recovery construction workers. Since that time, the Applicant has continued to work with prominent local employers to provide temporary housing to their employees. The need for 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 2 of 3 this housing has been tested through this temporary housing arrangement, which has remained at, or nearly, 100% occupied. Transitioning to permanent multifamily dwellings will further improve and formalize a housing opportunity that has already proven successful and demonstrates a long- term commitment to Collier County’s future. The Applicant’s housing model has been coordinated through lease agreements with local employers, who are then able to provide housing directly to their employees. As a conversion from hotel units, each dwelling unit will be limited to a minimum of 250 square feet and each unit is limited to two occupants. Furthermore, elements of the Applicant’s housing model, such as, reusing the existing building, limiting the sizes of the units, coordinating leases directly with employers, and providing all rooms fully furnished, all help to make rental prices attainable for employees. Additionally, the proposed GMP amendment and Rezone include commitments to provide affordable housing through income and rent limits. The Applicant’s housing model has been tested at the subject property and throughout the country. The Applicant’s housing model has also been utilized successfully in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, where the Applicant similarly invested significant resources to convert 104 temporary rooms at the Steamboat Hotel and Steamboat Mountain Lodge to permanent workforce multifamily dwellings for local employers and its employees. Additionally, The Urban Land Institute has reported in 2022, that this housing model is at the forefront of the attempt to address multifamily housing shortages across the nation (See https://urbanland.uli.org/planning- design/hotel-to-housing-conversions-proliferate/). The transition from hotel to multifamily units represents an innovative, but tested, approach to providing housing that also adds to Collier County’s housing diversity. The proposed amendment will allow for the reuse of the existing hotel and transition the project to a 110-unit multifamily development which will allow for residents to become permanent rather than temporary, and allowing for the rapid absorption of a much-needed workforce housing solution into the market. Surrounding Properties The surrounding development pattern consists of a mix of commercial, and business park uses, as further described below: Future Land Use Zoning Current Land Use North ROW (I-75) I-75 I-75 South Interchange Activity Center Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) Self-Storage (outdoor) East Interchange Activity Center Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) FPL Easement; Parking Lot West Interchange Activity Center Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) Comfort Inn Hotel Application Requirement Waivers The following application requirements were waived during the pre-application meeting on May 16, 2023: • Environmental Data • Historical Survey 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 3 of 3 Deviations The Applicant is seeking to add two deviations to the PUD Ordinance from the following LDC Sections: • 4.06.01.G Landscaping. The deviation allows for buffer requirements to be satisfied by existing landscaping along the north, south, and west boundaries and to add additional plantings within the vehicular use area along the east boundary to equate to a Type “B” Buffer, in support of the reuse of the property. • 4.05.04 G Parking Space Requirements. This deviation allows for a reduction in parking requirements for recreation facilities and other common uses. The attached Schedule of Deviations and Justification Narrative provides additional details regarding the deviation request. Review Criteria Please refer to the enclosed Evaluation Criteria exhibit for further details regarding the criteria in LDC section 10.02.13 B.5 and consistency with relevant policies in the GMP. Conclusion In summary, the proposed PUD amendment will facilitate the adaptive reuse of the Super 8 Hotel property for new affordable multifamily housing. Multifamily dwelling units are limited to 110 units which is consistent with the companion GMP amendment request, and the proposed deviations and Master Plan changes will allow for enhanced design flexibility that will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. The addition of residential uses to the PUD is consistent with the goal of Interchange Activity Centers to allow a mix of commercial, residential, and industrial uses at important gateways to the County. Moreover, the project will provide much needed affordable workforce housing and add to the supply of housing proximate to employment uses. In this way, the project addresses several goals established in the Collier County Community Housing Plan, such as reducing the percentage of households who are cost burdened and reducing the “Jobs-Housing Imbalance.” As outlined in the PUD Amendment application and attached exhibits, the proposed amendment is consistent with the LDC and GMP and supports several important community goals. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 357- 9580, or jfrantz@rviplanning.com Sincerely, RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture Jem Frantz, AICP Project Director cc: Andrew Korge, K2 Housing Naples Matthew Lohry, K2 Housing Naples Dan Kessler, K2 Housing Naples Rich Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester Law Firm 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment COMPLETED APPLICATION 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 1 of 11 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________ Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. To be completed by staff 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 2 of 11 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the ________________________________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: •If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; •The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and •The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial Mixed Use Other: ________________ 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 3 of 11 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 4 of 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a.The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b.Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at pu blic expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. c.Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) d.The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which c onditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e.The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f.The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g.The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h.Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to asce rtain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing and an applicati on “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary 1 Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre-application meeting notes 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 Statement of Utility Provisions 1 Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 Traffic Impact Study 1 Historical Survey 1 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 Electronic copy of all required documents 1 Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Checklist continues on next page 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 10 of 11 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet:  Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses  Exhibit B: Development Standards  Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code  Exhibit D: Legal Description  Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each  Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (Director) Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: City of Naples Utilities Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION  Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00  PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre  PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre  PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre  Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00  Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00  Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00  Transportation Review Fees: o Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 11 of 11 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00  School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are not listed, but are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. ___________________________________ _____________ Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date ___________________________________ Printed named of signing party 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 467 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 468 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 475 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 488Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) DM2\19298836.2 WRITTEN CONSENT OF MEMBERS AND MANAGERS OF K2 HOUSING NAPLES, LLC March ___, 2024 WHEREAS, the undersigned, being the Members and Managers of K2 HOUSING NAPLES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), hereby adopt the following resolutions by written consent pursuant to that certain Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Company dated August 12, 2022 (as amended, the “Operating Agreement”), and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act. WHEREAS, the Members and Managers desire, through the resolutions adopted herein, to consent to, approve and ratify the execution and delivery of that certain Affidavit of Authorization (Petition No.s PL20230007874, PL20230007875 and PL20230007876), that certain Covenant of Unified Control and any and all other zoning documents required by Collier County, Florida to obtain zoning or rezoning approval of the property located at 3880 Tollgate Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34114 (collectively, the “Zoning Documents”). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the execution and delivery of the Zoning Documents are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Company is hereby authorized and empowered to enter into, execute, deliver and perform its obligations under the Zoning Documents; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Andrew Korge as a Manager of the Company (the “Authorized Person”) is hereby authorized and directed, in the name and on behalf of the Company, to execute and deliver the Zoning Documents, to take any and all actions and to do any and all acts deemed necessary and/or advisable to effectuate the transactions contemplated by the foregoing resolutions, and the signature of the Authorized Person is sufficient to bind the Company on any such document; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all actions previously taken by the Authorized Person, in entering into, executing, performing, acknowledging or attesting any arrangements, agreements, instruments or documents in carrying out the terms and intentions of the foregoing resolutions are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed in all respects; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the actions taken hereby shall have the same force and effect as at a meeting duly called and held. Delivery of the executed signature pages by facsimile transmission, electronic signature, or in “portable document format” via electronic mail shall constitute effective and binding execution and delivery of such signature page. 21 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) DM2\19298836.2 * * * * * [SIGNATURES FOLLOW] 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) DM2\19298836.2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Members and Managers have executed this Written Consent as of the date first above written. MANAGERS: By: ______________________________ Andrew Korge By: ______________________________ Daniel Kessler By: ______________________________ Daniel Lavender By: ______________________________ Mary Morton MEMBERS: K2 HOUSING NAPLES GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: ______________________________ Daniel Kessler Manager K2 HOUSING NAPLES DEVELOPER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Andrew Korge Manager 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) DM2\19298836.2 RIVERSIDE HOUSING LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Daniel Lavender Authorized Signatory 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership K2 Housing Naples LLC - 3880 Tollgate Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 100% Riverside Housing, LLC 80% K2 Housing Naples GP, LLC 20% See attachment for additional ownership information 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: 9/15/22 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Date of option: _________________________ Date option terminates: __________________, or Anticipated closing date: ________________ AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition’s final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) Daniel Kessler Digitally signed by Daniel Kessler Date: 2023.04.04 16:18:23 -06'00' DANIEL KESSLER 04/04/2023 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Page 1 TOLLGATE COMM. CENTER PUD/DRI Property Ownership Disclosure Attachment Property Owner: K2 Housing Naples, LLC = 100% Riverside Housing, LLC = 80% Board of Directors = Thomas Taylor, Dudley Goodlette, Daniel J. Lavender, Clark Hill, Michael Wynn K2 Housing Naples GP, LLC = 20% K2 Naples Investors, LLC = 50% Christopher G. Korge = 21% K2 Housing LLC = 4.833% Matthew Lohry = 0.417% M. Gordon Daniels = 41.667% Richard Schiffrin = 8.333% Thomas J. Knox = 23.750% Invisible Naples Investment, LLC = 50% James M. Kilts Trust = 43% Reichenbaum Family LP = 53% Leon Lauk = 2% Michal Saadine = 1% Vikas Choudhary = 1% 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 499Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Exhibit A – Legal Description THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL TWO OF TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE ONE, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 1, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER WITH THE WEST 1/2 OF PARCEL ONE OF SAID SUBDIVISION BOUNDED BY THE PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL TWO. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR THE USE OF THE COMMON AREAS AS SET FORTH IN THE DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL OF TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER P.U.D. RECORDED JULY 12, 1989 IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1455, PAGE 535, AS AMENDED. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment COMPLETED ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Addressing Checklist (Rev 10/2022) Page 1 of 1 Operations & Regulatory Management Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items marked with (*) are required for every application, other items are optional and may not apply to every project. Forms are valid for 6 months following their submittal; an updated form will be required for a new submittal after that timeframe and any time the properties within the project boundary are modified. Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include: -* LOCATION MAP and/or SURVEY showing the proposed project boundary. -List of additional folio numbers and associated legal descriptions. - E-mail from Addressing Official for any pre-approved project and/or street names. LOCATION INFORMATION *FOLIO (Property ID) Number(s) of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] *LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] STREET ADDRESS(ES) where applicable, if already assigned. PROJECT INFORMATION Acceptance of this form does not constitute project and/or street name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Official. Pre-Approval may be requested by contacting us at GMD_Addressing@colliercountyfl.gov or 239-252-2482 prior to your submittal. CURRENT PROJECT NAME PROPOSED PROJECT NAME PROPOSED STREET NAME(s) LATEST APPROVED PROJECT NUMBER [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####] 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 4/25/23, 2:25 PM Collier County Property Appraiser https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 $ 7,000,000 $ 0 $ 3,200,000 $ 3,080,000 $ 0 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,179,840 $ 2,815,532 $ 4,995,372 $ 577,295 $ 4,418,077 $ 4,995,372 $ 4,418,077 Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Summar y Parcel No 76885005005 Site Address*Disclaimer 3880 TOLLGATEBLVD Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34114 Name / Address K2 HOUSING NAPLES LLC 3880 TOLLGATE BLVD City NAPLES State FL Zip 34114-5444 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres  *Estimated 4B35 664000PH 1 24B35 35 49 26 4.33 Legal TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE I, PARCEL 2 AND W15FT OF THE W1/2 OF PARCEL 1BOUNDED BY THE PROLONGATION OF NLY AND SLY LINES OF PARCEL 2 Millage Area 31 Millage Rates   *Calculations Sub./Condo 664000 - TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CTR PH 1 School Other Total Use Code 39 - HOTELS, MOTELS 4.459 6.6904 11.1494 Latest Sales Histor y (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 09/12/22 6174-1554 07/16/15 5180-2026 10/02/08 4397-3297 07/03/00 2693-2184 08/02/89 1466-503 08/01/89 1462-338  2022 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (-) 10% Cap (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll   9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 4/25/23, 2:26 PM Collier County Property Appraiser https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 $ 7,000,000 $ 0 $ 75 $ 0 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Summar y Parcel No 76885005102 Site Address*Disclaimer Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34114 Name / Address K2 HOUSING NAPLES LLC 3880 TOLLGATE BLVD City NAPLES State FL Zip 34114-5444 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres  *Estimated 4B35 664000PH 1 1.14B35 35 49 26 0.75 Legal TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE 1 EAST 70FT OF THE W1/2 OF PARCEL 1 BOUNDED BY THEPROLONGATION OF NLY AND SLY LINES OF PARCEL 2 Millage Area 31 Millage Rates   *Calculations Sub./Condo 664000 - TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CTR PH 1 School Other Total Use Code 28 - PARKING LOTS, MOBILE HOME PARKS 4.459 6.6904 11.1494 Latest Sales Histor y (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 09/12/22 6174-1554 07/16/15 5180-2026  2022 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll   9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment LIST OF OWNERS & WARRANTY DEED 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Page 1 of 1 Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD Property Owners Exhibit I. PROPERTY OWNERS LIST II. WARRANTY DEED See Following Pages STRAP Number Property Owner Acreage Address Section – Township - Range 1 76885005005 K2 Housing Naples LLC 4.33 3880 Tollgate Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 35-49-26 2 76885005102 K2 Housing Naples LLC 0.75 3880 Tollgate Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 35-49-26 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment BOUNDARY SURVEY 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) CO E DYHDYH WV WV WV WV FO FOSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSDYH S E FO WV CO SS SS SD SD 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) UGECO DYHDYH WV WV WV FO FO SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DYHS E FO WV CO SS SS SD SD 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e.Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ K2 Housing Naples, LLC 3880 Tollgate Blvd Naples FL 34114 (305) 479-6654 akorge@k2developers.com 3880 Tollgate Blvd Naples FL 34114 35 49 26 See attached legal description 76885005005 and 76885005102 x Collier County Utilities x Collier County Utilities Average Daily: __________ Average Daily: __________ 2023 38,500 GPD 27,500 GPD 275 people (110 units x 2.5 persons per unit = 275) 78.2 gpm 50,050 gpd 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment TIS 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment SCHOOL CONCURRENCY APPLICATION 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [√] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I.Project Information: Project Name: ___________________________________________ Municipality: _________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II.Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Email_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III.Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Worksheet is required to be completed by the Applicant only if the project is to be phased: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF MF MH C G Totals by Yr Grand Total Grand Total Insert totals by unit type by years. Unit Types: SF = Single Family MF = Multi-Family/Apartments MH = Mobile Homes C = Condo/Co-Op G = Government EXAMPLE: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF 25 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MF 50 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MH N/A C N/A G N/A Totals by Yr 75 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Grand Total 150 . 2 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Types of Reviews: School Impact Analysis: This review should be divided into two categories: -School Capacity Review (land use and rezonings), and; -Concurrency Determinations (site plans and subdivisions). School Capacity Review is the review of a project in the land use and rezoning stage of development. It is a review of the impact of the development on school capacity and is considered long range planning. This may be a review resulting in mitigation being required. In situations where the applicant may be required to mitigate, capacity may be reserved dependent on the type of mitigation. Concurrency Determination is the review of residential site plans and subdivisions to determine whether there is available capacity. When capacity is determined to be available a School Capacity Determination Letter (SCADL) will be issued verifying available capacity to the applicant and the local government. If a project exceeds the adopted level of service standards, the applicant is afforded the option of a negotiation period that may or may not result in an executed/recorded mitigation agreement Mitigation at this stage is expressed as a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. For those residential developments that may have an impact but are otherwise exempt from concurrency, an exemption letter will be prepared for the applicant upon request. For those residential developments that are determined to not have an impact, a letter of no impact will be prepared for the applicant upon request. Exemption Letter: An applicant may request an Exemption Letter as documentation for the local government. These are projects that would be exempt from school concurrency review or projects that do not impact the public schools. Exemptions from school concurrency are limited to existing single family or mobile home lots of record; amendments to previously approved site plans or plats that do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type; age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18; or residential site plans or plats or amendments to site plans or plats that generate less than one student; or are authorized as a Development of Regional Impact (Chapter 380, F.S.) as of July 1, 2005. Concurrency Determination Amendment: An applicant may request an amendment to a previously issued School Concurrency Determination or to an application being processed. This review may require additional staff time beyond the initial concurrency determination review and results in a modified determination being issued. An amendment could result in a negotiation period and/or a mitigation agreement being issued or a previously approved determination being modified and reissued. 3 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 526 Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment ORIGINAL PUD DOCUMENT 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) ORDINANCE NO. 17- 1 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-10, AS AMENDED, THE TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO ADD SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONAL USES AS PERMITTED USES ON TRACTS 7, 8 AND 9 OF THE COMMERCIAL USE AREAS, "A" PARCELS, AS SHOWN ON THE PUD MASTER PLAN; BY AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO ADD SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONAL USES AS PERMITTED USES ON TRACTS 16-20 AND 24-25 OF THE COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES AREA, "B" PARCELS, AS SHOWN ON THE PUD MASTER PLAN; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR-951) AND BECK BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20150002280] WHEREAS, on February 11, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 92-10, which established the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (the "Tollgate PUD"); and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 93-91, which amended the Tollgate PUD; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 15-49 which further amended the Tollgate PUD; and WHEREAS, Sky Angel Center, LLC and Toll Gate Naples, LLC represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP of Robert L. Duane & Associates and Richard Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koestner, P.A. petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to further amend the Tollgate PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Document. Exhibit "A" to the PUD Document, attached to Ordinance No. 92-10, as amended, is hereby amended and replaced with the Exhibit"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. 16-CPS-01517] 171 1 of2 Tollgate Commercial Center—PUDA-PL20150002280 3/28/17 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by sum-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this cl tN. day of G 2017. ftp, ATTEST: BOARD IF .I` TY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT:E.`Bk K;;CLERK COLLIE t 0 , TY, FLORID BY: By. // rsg s Jerk PENNY YLOR, an Signa t 0111 Approved as to form and legality: Hei 1 Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—PUD Document and Master Plan This ordinance filed with the SNstery of tote's Of 'ce'ttite day of and acknowledgemrpi gf, that fi _ _. dA . , day By pep clerk 16-CPS-01517] 171 2 of 2 Tollgate Commercial Center—PUDA-PL20150002280 3/28/17 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PREPARED BY: RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH& KOESTER, P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUTIE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 239)435-3535 And ROBERT L. DUANE ROBERT L. DUANE&ASSOCIATES,A.LC.P 4880 TAMARIND RIDGE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34119 239) 353-4167 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC: DATE APPROVED BY BCC: ORDINANCE NUMBER: AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL: Page 1 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words strue-kthsengh are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLE 3 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 4 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 5 - 9 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 10 - 12 SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN FOR PARCEL "A" 13 - 17 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS 18 - 22 FOR PARCEL"B" SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 23 - 27 Page 2 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struek-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT "A"PUD Master Plan TABLE I Schedule of Development Page 3 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words stwek-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 100.23 acres of property in Collier County and within an Interchange Activity Center, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as Tollgate Commercial Center, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan and its provisions for Interchange Activity Center development. This compliance includes: Activity Center Project 1. The subject property is located in an area identified as an Interchange Activity Center in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth management Plan for Collier County. 2. Interstate Activity Centers are the preferred locations for the concentration of commercial and mixed use development activities. 3. The subject tract is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of CR-951 and CR-84. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of commercial/industrial activities. 4. The project is in compliance with all applicable County regulations. In addition, the project complies with the Growth Management Plan with the adoption of the Plan amendment which allows for specifically approved heavy business/light industrial uses to be developed in designated interstate activity centers. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by the County. 6. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers and the proposed development standards contained herein. 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open spaces and naturalized open features which serve as project amenities. 8. The project shall be developed in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan and the existing PUD document as approved. In addition, the project shall be developed in accordance with all Collier County regulations in effect at the time of Final SDP or building permit application. 9. Bind the owner's successor in title to any commitments made under in this document. Page 4 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words stark-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of Tollgate Commercial Center. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Commencing at the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida; thence along the east line of said Section 35 North 1°- 56' —55" West 200.14 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of State Road 84(Alligator Alley);thence along said north right-of-way line, North 89° -45' -01" West 331.23 feet to a point of intersection of said north right-of-way line of State Road 93 (I-75),and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley) on the following five courses: 1) North 89°-45' -01" West 2398.66 feet; 2) South 89° -56' -16" West 1547.43 feet; 3) North 80° -43' -58" West 709.38 feet; 4) North 39° -52' -42" West 209.91 feet; 5) North 10° -24' -33" West 209.94 Feet to a point on the East Limited Access, right-of way line of State Road 93 (1-75); thence continue along said Limited Access, right-of-way line of State 93 (1-75) on the following nine courses: 1) North 3° -19' -52" East 285.34 feet; 2) North 23° -37' -28" East 149.83 feet; 3) North 64°-12' -39" East 149.83 feet; 4) North 86° -37' -01" East 778.54 feet; 5) South 87° -55' -12" East 318.82 feet; 6) South 78° -44' -38" East 318.32 feet; 7) South 74° -09' -17" East 1199.30 feet; 8) South 73° -00' -33" East 1904.96 feet; 9) southeasterly 233.67 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 116.2116 feet, subtended by a chord which bears South 75° -35' -07" East 223.67 feet to the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; being a part of south '/2, Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; subject to easements and restrictions of records; containing 69.40 acres of land more or less; bearings are based on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map for State Road 93 (1-75). Page 5 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PCDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: Description of part of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and part of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida COMMENCE at an iron pipe marking the Northeast Corner of said Section 2; thence North 89° 45' 01" West, 337.83 feet along the North line of said Section 2 for a POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 00° 02' 19" East, 59.98 feet; thence South 89° 57' 41" West, 2,300.70 feet; thence on a course traversing from said Section 35, South 89° 56' 02" West, 2,448.74 feet; thence North 45° 46' 16" West, 71.58 feet; thence North 01° 28' 34" West, 705.25 feet to the Easterly Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 951 (Section 03175-2409); thence South 10°24' 33"East, 209.94 feet; thence South 39° 52' 42" East, 209.91 feet; thence South 80° 43" 58" East, 709.38 feet; thence North 89°56' 16"East, 1,547.43 feet;thence South 89°45' 01"East,2,396.67 feet to the Southerly Existing Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 93 (03175-2409);thence South 00°02' 19"East,200.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Less and except the East 100.00 feet thereof. Containing 30.835 acres, more or less. The entire project area is 100.235 acres. Number of acres devoted to various categories of land use: Development area 70.72 Water management area 17.84 Road Right-of-Way 6.7 F.P.L Easement 4.98 GENERAL LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE Tollgate Commercial Center is located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate I-75/CR-951 interchange, approximately five miles east of the Naples Airport at the eastern terminus of Davis Boulevard (SR 84). 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently owned by and under the unified control of Tollgate Commercial Center, a Florida General Partnership. The ownership of this property on April 25th, 2017 is Toll Gate Naples LLC, and Sky Angel Center LLC. Page 6 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PCDA-Pl.201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is designated Interstate Activity Center on the Collier County Growth Management Plan. B. CURRENT ZONING: The project site is currently zoned PUD. C. EXISTING LAND USE: At the present time the site is unoccupied except for a 104 room motel. D. ADJACENT LAND USE: The adjacent lands are predominately vacant at the present time. The northwest and southwest corners of CR 951 and SR 84 are presently used as gasoline service stations. The properties north of the I-75 right-of-way and the properties south of CR 84 are vacant. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The elevation of the project site varies form 9.8 feet to 11.6 feet. Tollgate Commercial Center lies within Zone X as identified on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. Zone X is identified as those areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood. This means that no development will be occurring within the 100-year flood prone area. A. SOILS: There are three types of soil cover on the project site. They are Arzell fine sands, Keri fine sands and Pompano fine sands. The distribution of these soil types is shown in Map E. B. VEGETATIVE COVER: A breakdown of the vegetative cover of the project area is as follows: VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGE Pineland 1.00 Saw Palmetto/Rusty Lyonia 4.21 Transitional Zone/Cypress 29.40 Functional Wetland 9.40 Cabbage Palm Heads 30 Improved/Platted 30.67 Cleared/Filled Unplatted Former R/W 21.66 F.P.L. R/W 3.60 TOTAL 100.24 Page 7 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PL'DA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words s*uek4I+feugh are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) There are no unique features of the vegetation. All species and associations are typical" for soil types common to pine flatwoods of level sandy areas of Collier County. C. WILDLIFE: Wildlife, observed or noted from tracks, nests, etc. consisted of the representative species, such as raccoon, snakes and wading birds, which normally occur in a habitat such as the Tollgate Commercial Center site. No endangered or threatened species were observed on the site. D. HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: John Beriault, Field Representative of the S.W. Florida Archaeological Society, searched for such sites and believes none exist on the tract. E. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT: Waste water treatment is being provided by the Collier County Sewage Treatment System. Temporary on-site wastewater treatment facilities for which all necessary permits have been granted may be installed during any period of time in which sewage treatment service is not available from Collier County. F. WATER MANAGEMENT: The Water Management Plan provides for site runoff transport to a system of hardwood forest, marsh, and open water ponds. The Water Management Plan is designed to meet SFWMD and County criteria. Minimum road elevations and discharge control will be designed for the 25-year, 3- day rainfall event. The finished floor elevations will be established by the 100 year-zero discharge design event. G. WATER SUPPLY: Potable water is being supplied by the Collier County Water- Sewer District. Non-potable water utilized for landscape irrigation and other non-human consumptive uses will be procured from on-site wells, or from the County treated sewage effluent distribution system. H. SOLID WASTE: Solid waste is being disposed of at the Collier County Sanitary Landfill. Collection is provided by Waste Management of Collier County, a franchised hauler. I.ELECTRICITY: Electricity is being provided by the Florida Power & Light Company, Inc. J.POLICE PROTECTION: Police protection is provided by the Collier County Sheriff Department. Page 8 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck h-rough are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) K. FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection is provided by the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. L. TELEPHONE: Telephone service is provided by United Telephone of Florida. Page9of28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words stfuel4hreugh are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally described the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances,the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations, requirements and references for development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall be in accordance with the contents of this document. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless specifically waived through variance or waiver provisions within the PUD, those applicable regulations not otherwise provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect. E. Each tract, as identified on the Master Plan, shall require the submittal, review and subsequent approval of a Site Development Plan prior to the issuance of a Final Local Development Order. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Master Plan is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT Project development is underway and will continue to build-out. Page 10 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PIJDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) The following schedule indicates the anticipated start and completion dates for the various project development Phases. Phase boundaries are indicated on the Master Development Plan. TABLE I PHASE ACREAGE SITE START COMPLETE I 54.51 54.4 1988 1993 1I 26.44 26.4 1992 1995 III 19.29 19.2 1993 1996 TOTALS 100.24 100.0 A. Table I is a schedule of Development, with the approximate acreage of the total project indicated. The arrangement of these land areas are shown on the PUD Master Development Plan (Exhibit "A"). The Master Development Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. Design criteria and layout is illustrative on the Master Development Plan and other exhibits supporting this project. It shall be understood that these exhibits are to remain flexible so the final design may satisfy development objectives and be consistent with the project development, as set forth in this document. Minor changes to the master plan shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5, Division 2.7, Article 2 10.02.13.E. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual requirements for drive patterns, parking layout and requirements, and development parcel size and configuration. B. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A", such utility and other easements as are necessary shall be established within or along the various tracts. 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, for all or part of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, and the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Exhibit "A', PUD Master Development Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, if Page 11 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PLDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words striuek-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) applicable, shall be submitted for any area to be subdivided. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. C. The development of any tract or parcel contemplating fee simple ownership of land shall be required to submit and receive approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in conformance with the requirements of Division 3.2, Article 3, Section 10.02.04. - Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats of the Collier County Land Development Code, prior to the submittal of construction plans and plat for any portion of the tract or parcel. D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. E. The developer or subsequent owner of any platted parcel or platted tract shall, prior to application for a building permit, submit a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the tract or parcel to the Development Services Department for approval for applicable development subject to the provisions of Division 3.3, Article 3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section 2.7.3.5.1, Division 2.7, Article 2 10.02.13.E. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.6 LIMITATIONS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL As provided for within Section 2.7.3.4, Division 2.7, Article 2 10.02.13.D. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.7 POLLING PLACES As provided for in Section 3.2.8.3.11, Division 3.2,Article 3 2.01.04-Polling Places of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.8 PUD MONITORING An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6, Division 2.7, Article 2— 10.02.13.F. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. Page 12 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center Pt DA-PL 20150002280Ordinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas so designated on Exhibit"A", as "A" Parcels. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL "A" It is the intent of this document that "A" designated development parcels be used for commercial purposes which serve the motoring public using Interstate I-75 as well as providing limited commercial goods and services of an area-wide nature for the Naples, Marco Island, Golden Gate and the Immokalee urban areas. Further it is the intent of this document that "A" designated development parcels shall be used in accordance with all current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 3.3 COMMERCIAL USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: a) Automobile service stations including engine tune-ups and minor repairs, and car wash facilities which are accessory uses. b) Banks and financial institutions, business and professional offices. c) Cocktail lounges and commercial entertainment. d) Convention and exhibition halls. e) Department stores; drug stores; dry cleaning shops and dry goods stores. Page 13 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) f) Electronic games and furniture sales. g) Ice cream shops and dairy drive-in stores. h) Motels; hotels and other transient lodging facilities. i) Research and design labs; restaurants and fast food restaurants. j) Shopping centers. k) Souvenir stores and stationery stores. I) Supermarkets m) Variety stores; vehicle rental-automobile and U-haul type of vehicles and equipment including outside display; veterinary offices and clinics; no outside kenneling. n) Any other commercial or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. b) Caretakers residence. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures a) Car wash facilities which are principal uses. b) Permitted uses with less than one thousand (1,000) square feet gross floor area in the principal structure. Page 14 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words dough are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 3.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in Section 3.3., the following principal uses are permitted on the property described on Tracts 7, 8, 9, on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A. Amusements and Recreational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999): limited to: - Gymnastics, Instruction, Judo Instruction, Karate Instruction, Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction, and Day Camps. Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 8331) Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 8621) Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) Social Services (SIC Code 8322) : Excluding: Alcoholism Counseling, Non-Residential Except Medical Treatment, Offender Rehabilitation Agencies, Parole Offices, Probation Offices, and Offender self-help agencies. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. 3) Minimum Yard Requirements: a) Front Yard—Twenty-five(25)feet plus one(1)foot for each two(2)feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. b) Side Yard —None or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for motels, hotels and Page 15 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PI,20150002280Ordinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. c) Rear Yard—Twenty-five (25) feet. d) Waterfront — Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal water line of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. 4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. 5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand(1,000)square feet per building on the ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted areas for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. 6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotels, motels or transient lodging facilities. 7) Distance between Principal Structures on same Site: one-half the sum of the heights. 8) Signs: As required by Division 2.5 Section 5.06.00 — SIGN REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSSIFICATION of the Land Development Code. 9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Division 2.3 Section 4.05.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: a.Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR-84 and CR-951: CR-84, 5 feet and CR-951, 10 feet Type D Buffer with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 2.4.7.4 alternative D 4.06.02.C.4. b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with alternative A of subsection 2.4.7.4of the buffer standards Type A Buffer pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.1. c.Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). d. All landscaping requirements of Division 2.4 Section 4.06.00 - Landscaping, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. Page 16 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PIiDA-Pl.201500022S0Ordinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) e.Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in SDP applications for each individual development site. 1 1) Outside Merchandise Storage and displaying: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or by an approved Site Development Plan, outside storage or display of merchandise is prohibited. 12) Uses set forth in Section 3.3.1, shall meet the standards of the "Activity Center #9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan." Existing buildings and structures, as shown on an SDP approved before the date of adoption of this Ordinance, may remain as non-conforming until redevelopment. Page 17 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial/Industrial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas designated on Exhibit"A" as "B" Parcels. 4.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL "B" It is the intent of this document that"B" designated development parcels by-be used for both "A" designated uses and for the sale, service, transportation, storage and distribution of goods and service to the traveling public on 1-75 and to the citizens of the area which can be served via the access road systems. A major function of these parcels is to serve as a focal point for the arrival of goods from other points of the region and country and then be processed for distribution to the local trade market. It is intended that inside storage and warehousing along with limited assembly and manufacturing wholly within a building and not obnoxious by reason of emission of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, noise or vibration be permitted. Further, it is the intent of this document that"B"designated Parcels be used in accordance with all of the current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document or as may be approved otherwise by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. 4.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part of other than the following: A. Principal Uses: a) Any principal use or structure permitted on "A" designated development parcels. b) Assembly operations in an enclosed building. Page 18 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 20150002280Ordinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) c) Building supplies and contractors storage facilities; bulk storage yards not including junk or salvage yards. d) Car wash, communications service and equipment repair. e) Freight movers and storage. f) Laboratories, research, design and testing; laundries; lawn maintenance shops and plant nurseries; light manufacturing or processing (include food processing but not abattoir; packaging or fabricating in a completely enclosed building). g) Miscellaneous uses such as express office; telephone exchange; motor or bus or truck or other transportation terminal and related uses; motorcycle sales, service and repair; museums and tourist attractions. h) New and used car sales, service and repair including outside display. i) Offices, general purpose. j) Warehousing, wholesaling, storage and distributing establishments and similar uses. k) Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1) Any accessory use or structure customarily associated with the permitted uses and structures. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures: 1) Attached residence in conjunction with a business—one (1) per business. 2) Permitted use with less than 1,000 square feet gross floor areas in the principal building. Page 19 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PL'DA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 4.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in Section 4.3.,the following principal uses are permitted on Tracts 16-20, and 24-25 on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A. Amusements and Recreational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999): limited to: - Gymnastics, Instruction, Judo Instruction, Karate Instruction, Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction, and Day Camps. Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 8331) Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 8621) Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) Social Services (SIC Code 8322) : Excluding: Alcoholism Counseling, Non-Residential Except Medical Treatment, Offender Rehabilitation Agencies, Parole Offices, Probation Offices, and Offender self-help agencies. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. 3) Minimum Yard Requirements: a) Front Yard—Twenty-five (25) feet. b) Side Yard —None, or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for hotels, motels and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2)feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. Attached residences shall be treated as non-residential. Page 20 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) c) Rear Yard —Twenty-five (25) feet. d) Waterfront—Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal level of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. 4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. 5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000)square feet per building on ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted uses for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. 6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotel, motel and transient lodging facilities. 7) Distance between Structures: One-half the sum of the heights. 8) Signs: As required by Division 2.5 Section 5.06.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Division 23 Section 4.05.00 Off-Street Parking and Loading of the Collier County Land Development Code. 10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: a. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR-84 and CR-951: CR-84, 5 feet and CR-951, 10 feet Type D Buffer with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 2.4.7.4 alternative D 4.06.02.C.4 b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with alternative A of subsection 2.4.7.4 of the buffer standards Type A Buffer pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.1. c. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). d. All landscape requirements of Division 2.1 Section 4.06.00 Landscape, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. Page 21 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struck through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) e. Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in SDP applications for each individual development site. 1 1) Merchandise Storage and Display: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or an approved Site Development Plan, or of a nature which is permitted generally,outside storage or display or merchandise is prohibited. 12) Uses set forth in Section 4.3.1, shall meet the standards of the "Activity Center #9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan." Existing buildings and structures, as shown on an SDP approved before the date of adoption of this Ordinance, may remain as non-conforming until redevelopment. Page 22 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words sfrwek-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for the development of the project. 5.2 PUD MASTER PLAN A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. B. The design criteria and layout illustrated in the Master Development Plan shall be interpreted as preliminary and understood to be flexible so that the final design may best satisfy the project and comply with all applicable requirements. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to Staff approval. C. All necessary easements, dedication, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. D. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structure, locations of all improved facilities and location and treatment of buffer areas. 5.3 ENGINEERING A. The developer and all subsequent petitioners are hereby placed on notice that they shall be required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This includes, but is not limited to, Preliminary Subdivision Plats, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result in the issuance of a final or final local development order. B. The project shall be platted in accordance with the Collier County Subdivision Cede Section 10.02.04 -Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats to define the right-of-way, tracts, and water management areas as shown on the master plan. C. Landscaping shall not be placed within the water management areas unless specifically approved by project Review Services. D. Provide a landscape buffer along the entire southern property line in accordance with Section with Section 3.4 (10) and 4.4 (10) of this PUD. Page 23 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words stfeek-thteugk are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) E. Should the South Florida Water Management District, during its permit review process, require a natural vegetative buffer be created between the lots and any jurisdictional wetland Preserve and/or Conservation tract, the buffer shall not be located within the boundaries of the lot(s) unless otherwise waived by the South Florida Water Management District. It shall be created as a separate platted tract or as a buffer Easement over an expanded limit of the Preserve tracts, which would be dedicated as Preserve/Drainage tracts, to include the buffer within the Preserve tract. If the buffer is located within a separate tract, that tract shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and if necessary, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All Preserve buffer easements or buffer tracts shall be created in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 704.06, Florida Statutes. F. Land Development Code, Section 3.2.8.1.16.6 6.06.01 — Street System Requirements Dead end streets maximum length not to exceed 1,000 feet: Waived to a maximum length of 1,050 feet. G. Land Development Regulations, Section 3.2.8.4.16 6.06.01 — Street System Requirements— All local streets within commercial subdivision shall be designed according to the typical section for collector streets contained in the County Standards. Waived subject to right-of-way and other dimension requirements for the roads to meet local street standards and the pavements structure to meet collector standards. H. Land Development Code, Section 3.2.8.4.7 6.01.02 — Easements: Utility easements will be provided as needed with Collier County utility easements (C.U.E.) at a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. I.Land Development Code, Section 3.2.8.3.17 6.06.02 — Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathways Requirements. Not waived since existing phase already has sidewalks and it will maintain the continuity for pedestrian's access purposes. 5.4 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 88 76 Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 134 Utilities, Section 134-47, Policies and Standards, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. Page 24 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words sfwek-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. C. The on-site water distribution system to serve the project must be connected to the existing water main on Tollhouse Drive and/or CR-84 rights-of-way consistent with the main sizing requirements specified in the County's Water Master Plan and extended throughout the project. During design of these facilities, dead end mains shall be eliminated by looping the internal pipeline network. D. The utility construction documents for the project's sewerage system shall be prepared so that all sewage flowing to the County's master pump station is transmitted by one(1)main on-site pump station. Due to the design and configuration of the master pump station, flow by gravity into the station will not be possible. The Developer's Engineer shall meet with the County Staff prior to commencing preparation of construction drawings, so that all aspects of the sewerage system design can be coordinated with the County's sewer master plan. E. The existing off-site water facilities of the District must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project and reinforced as required, if necessary, consistent with the County's Water Master Plan to insure that the District's water system can hydraulically provide a sufficient quantity of water to meet the anticipated demands of the project and the District's existing committed capacity. F. The existing off-site sewage transmission facilities of the district must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project improved as required outside the project boundary to provide adequate capacity to transport the additional wastewater generated without adverse impact to the existing transmission facilities. 5.5 WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING A. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Right of Way Ordinance No. 8291-03-37, as amended. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lakes(s) in accordance with Division 3.5-of the Collier County Land Development Code Collier County Code of Laws Page 25 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words stwek-through are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Excavation. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DER DEP and ACOE USACE permits. D. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum 1/2 inch of dry pre-treatment on site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. 5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL A. All jurisdictional wetlands and mitigation areas on-site shall be designated as conservation/preserve tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants similar to or as per Chapter 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. B. In the case of mitigation off-site any purchase must be within the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) or the Corkscrew Regional Ecological Watershed Lands CREW) or other areas approved for mitigation by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The ultimate transfer of deed(s) of land(s) to Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands must occur prior to final construction plan/plat approvals. C. Control structures on-site shall be constructed in accordance with State and Federal permits. 5.7 WATER MANAGEMENT A. Detailed paving, grading, and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Excavation. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DER DEP and ACOE USACE permits. D. A copy of SFWMD Permit or Early Work Permit is required prior to construction plan approval. E. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum '/2 inch of dry pre-treatment on- site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. Page 26 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words struckthrough are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 5.8 TRANSPORTATION A. The final location of major access points along Davis Boulevard shall be determined during the SMP process approval of the Final Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan. Such major access points shall provide primary access and internal road circulation and shall typically include turn land improvements based on projected traffic conditions. Secondary access points between Davis Boulevard and individual parcels shall be prohibited unless approved consistent with Ordinance 82 91 the Final Subdivision Plat as may be amended and with the following access control criteria: 1. safety 2. proper geometric design 3. effects on the capacity of Davis Boulevard 4. traffic volumes using the proposed access point 5. other roadways providing access to the site 6. the combined effect of access to any and all tracts both within this PUD and adjacent PUD's 7. spacing of access points Collier County reserves the right to close any approved secondary access to and from Davis Boulevard should it at any time be found to create a traffic hazard or to adversely affect the capacity or level of service of that roadway. B. The road impact fee shall be as set forth in Ordinance 85 55 Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 74, as amended, and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners. C. Access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee credits and shall be in place before any certificates of occupancy are issued. D. All traffic control devices used shall conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as required by Chapter 316.0747 Florida Statutes. Page 27 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 03.22.17 v.1 Words ugh are deleted;words bold&underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.***Indicate break in pages. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) NIAP" MASTER f? ii DEVELOPMENT PLAN f:: '":ff W TOLLGATE a COMMERCIAL CENTER e o 0E January, 1991 00 o e 1- w :::ir:•: ::•i:.•r}`^: ::id HP; c 4 I ti{ in40111111.1 i Ir ti::::: A . y H .aPF fill rWNNUr F-. i4H IANTX DRIVE w a C. 0 0, 44110' 144 Ilii M 1 1 1 rh1 s :: 1- II t RUSH BOULEVARD 0. g::: :::.:::i:.ill illii...:.:.:.:.:.:i:i***1: N.......,- FP&1.EASEMENT it . s im U CA 1 A t= L1g: 1 g-_ cn aw o C OF TOLLGATE BLVD. d vow g' QYkJV L =.... C1. C.R. 951 EXHIBIT "A" 1 Page 28 of 28 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) a 01110,47 4npµ,Ettb.:' i FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State May 15, 2017 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101-3044 Attention: Ann P. Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 17-15, which was filed in this office on May 15, 2017. Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator ELR/lb R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 www.dos.state.fl.us 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment REVISED PUD DOCUMENT 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 1 of 31 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PREPARED BY: RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUTIE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 (239) 435-3535 And ROBERT L. DUANE ROBERT L. DUANE & ASSOCIATES, A.I.C.P 4880 TAMARIND RIDGE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34119 (239) 353-4167 JEM FRANTZ, A.I.C.P. RVI PLANNING + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 405-7777 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC: _________ DATE APPROVED BY BCC: _________ ORDINANCE NUMBER: _________ AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL: _________ 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 2 of 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLE 3 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 4 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 5 - 9 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 10 - 12 SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN FOR PARCEL "A" 13 – 18 13 - 17 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS 19 - 23 FOR PARCEL "B" 18 - 22 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 24 – 28 23 – 27 SECTION VI DEVIATIONS 29 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 3 of 31 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT “A” PUD Master Plan TABLE I Schedule of Development 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 4 of 31 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 100.23 acres of property in Collier County and within an Interchange Activity Center, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as Tollgate Commercial Center, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan and its provisions for Interchange Activity Center development. This compliance includes: Activity Center Project 1. The subject property is located in an area identified as an Interchange Activity Center in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth management Plan for Collier County. 2. Interstate Activity Centers are the preferred locations for the concentration of commercial and mixed use development activities. 3. The subject tract is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of CR-951 and CR- 84. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of commercial/industrial activities. 4. The project is in compliance with all applicable County regulations. In addition, the project complies with the Growth Management Plan with the adoption of the Plan amendment which allows for specifically approved heavy business/light industrial uses, residential uses, and mixed-use developments to be developed in designated interstate activity centers. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by the County. 6. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers and the proposed development standards contained herein. 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open spaces and naturalized open features which serve as project amenities. 8. The project shall be developed in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan and the existing PUD document as approved. In addition, the project shall be developed in accordance with all Collier County regulations in effect at the time of Final SDP or building permit application. 9. Bind the owner's successor in title to any commitments made under in this document. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 5 of 31 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of Tollgate Commercial Center. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Commencing at the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida; thence along the east line of said Section 35 North 1 ° - 56' -55" West 200.14 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); thence along said north right-of-way line, North 89° -45' -01" West 331.23 feet to a point of intersection of said north right-of-way line of State Road 93 (I-75), and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley) on the following five courses: 1) North 89° -45' -0 I" West 2398.66 feet; 2) South 89° -56' -16" West 1547.43 feet; 3) North 80° -43' -58" West 709.38 feet; 4) North 39° -52' -42" West 209.91 feet; 5) North 10° -24' -33" West 209.94 Feet to a point on the East Limited Access, right- of way line of State Road 93 (1-75); thence continue along said Limited Access, right-of-way line of State 93 (I-75) on the following nine courses: 1) North 3° -19' -52" East 285.34 feet; 2) North 23° -37' -28" East 149.83 feet; 3) North 64° -12' -39" East 149.83 feet; 4) North 86° -37' -0 l" East 778.54 feet; 5) South 87° -55' -12" East 318.82 feet; 6) South 78° -44' -38" East 318.32 feet; 7) South 74° -09' -17" East 1199.30 feet; 8) South 73° -00' -33" East 1904.96 feet; 9) southeasterly 233.67 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 116.2116 feet, subtended by a chord which bears South 75° -35' -07'' East 223.67 feet to the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; being a part of south ½, Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; subject to easements and restrictions of records; containing 69.40 acres of land more or less; bearings are based on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map for State Road 93 (1-75). 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 6 of 31 ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: Description of part of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and part of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida COMMENCE at an iron pipe marking the Northeast Corner of said Section 2; thence North 89° 45' 01" West, 337.83 feet along the North line of said Section 2 for a POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 00° 02' 19" East, 59.98 feet; thence South 89° 57' 41" West, 2,300.70 feet; thence on a course traversing from said Section 35, South 89° 56' 02" West, 2,448.74 feet; thence North 45° 46' 16" West, 71.58 feet; thence North 01° 28' 34" West, 705.25 feet to the Easterly Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 951 (Section 03175-2409); thence South I 0° 24' 33" East, 209.94 feet; thence South 39° 52' 42" East, 209.91 feet; thence South 80° 43" 58" East, 709.38 feet; thence North 89° 56' 16" East, 1,547.43 feet; thence South 89° 45' 0I" East, 2,396.67 feet to the Southerly Existing Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 93 (03175-2409); thence South 00° 02' 19" East, 200.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Less and except the East 100.00 feet thereof. Containing 30.835 acres, more or less. All of Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase One, as recorded in Plat Book 16 Page 1, public records of Collier County, Florida; and All of Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase Two, as recorded in Plat Book 18 Pages 23-24, public records of Collier County, Florida; and All of Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase Three, as recorded in Plat Book 22 Pages 95- 100, public records of Collier County, Florida. The entire project area is 100.235 acres. Number of acres devoted to various categories of land use: Development area 70.72 Water management area 17.84 Road Right-of-Way 6.7 F.P.L Easement 4.98 GENERAL LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE Tollgate Commercial Center is located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 1-75/CR- 951 interchange, approximately five miles east of the Naples Airport at the eastern terminus of Davis Boulevard (SR 84). 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 7 of 31 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The ownership of this property on April 25th, 2017 is Toll Gate Naples LLC, and Sky Angel Center LLC. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 8 of 31 1.43 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is designated Interstate Interchange Activity Center on the Collier County Growth Management Plan. B. CURRENT ZONING: The project site is currently zoned PUD. C. EXISTING LAND USE: At the present time the site is unoccupied except for a 104 room motel. D. ADJACENT LAND USE: The adjacent lands are predominately vacant at the present time. The northwest and southwest corners of CR 951 and SR 84 are presently used as gasoline service stations. The properties north of the I-75 right-of-way and the properties south of CR 84 are vacant. 1.54 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The elevation of the project site varies from 9.8 feet to 11.6 feet. Tollgate Commercial Center lies within Zone X as identified on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. Zone X is identified as those areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood. This means that no development will be occurring within the 100-year flood prone area. A. SOILS: There are three types of soil cover on the project site. They are Arzell fine sands, Keri fine sands and Pompano fine sands. The distribution of these soil types is shown in Map E. B. VEGETATIVE COVER: A breakdown of the vegetative cover of the project area is as follows: VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGE Pineland 1.00 Saw Palmetto/Rusty Lyonia 4.21 Transitional Zone/Cypress 29.40 Functional Wetland 9.40 Cabbage Palm Heads .30 Improved/Platted 30.67 Cleared/Filled Unplatted Former R/W 21.66 F.P.L. R/W 3.60 TOTAL 100.24 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 9 of 31 There are no unique features of the vegetation. All species and associations are "typical" for soil types common to pine flatwoods of level sandy areas of Collier County. C. WILDLIFE: Wildlife, observed or noted from tracks, nests, etc. consisted of the representative species, such as raccoon, snakes and wading birds, which normally occur in a habitat such as the Tollgate Commercial Center site. No endangered or threatened species were observed on the site. D. HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: John Beriault, Field Representative of the S.W. Florida Archaeological Society, searched for such sites and believes none exist on the tract. E. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT: Waste water treatment is being provided by the Collier County Sewage Treatment System. Temporary on-site wastewater treatment facilities for which all necessary permits have been granted may be installed during any period of time in which sewage treatment service is not available from Collier County. F. WATER MANAGEMENT: The Water Management Plan provides for site runoff transport to a system of hardwood forest, marsh, and open water ponds. The Water Management Plan is designed to meet SFWMD and County criteria. Minimum road elevations and discharge control will be designed for the 25-year, 3-day rainfall event. The finished floor elevations will be established by the 100 year-zero discharge design event. G. WATER SUPPLY: Potable water is being supplied by the Collier County Water- Sewer District. Non-potable water utilized for landscape irrigation and other non-human consumptive uses will be procured from on-site wells, or from the County treated sewage effluent distribution system. H. SOLID WASTE: Solid waste is being disposed of at the Collier County Sanitary Landfill. Collection is provided by Waste Management of Collier County, a franchised hauler. I. ELECTRICITY: Electricity is being provided by the Florida Power & Light Company, Inc. J. POLICE PROTECTION: Police protection is provided by the Collier County Sheriff Department. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 10 of 31 K. FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection is provided by the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. L. TELEPHONE: Telephone service is provided by United Telephone of Florida. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 11 of 31 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally described the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations, requirements and references for development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall be in accordance with the contents of this document. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless specifically waived through variance or waiver provisions within the PUD, those applicable regulations not otherwise provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect. E. Each tract, as identified on the Master Plan, shall require the submittal, review and subsequent approval of a Site Development Plan prior to the issuance of a Final Local Development Order. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Master Plan is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT Project development is underway and will continue to build-out. The following schedule indicates the anticipated start and completion dates for the various project development Phases. Phase boundaries are indicated on the Master Development Plan. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 12 of 31 TABLE I % OF PHASE ACREAGE SITE START COMPLETE I 54.51 54.4 1988 1993 II 26.44 26.4 1992 1995 III 19.29 19.2 1993 1996 TOTALS 100.24 100.0 A. Table I is a schedule of Development, with the approximate acreage of the total project indicated. The arrangement of these land areas are shown on the PUD Master Development Plan (Exhibit “A”). The Master Development Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. Design criteria and layout is illustrative on the Master Development Plan and other exhibits supporting this project. It shall be understood that these exhibits are to remain flexible so the final design may satisfy development objectives and be consistent with the project development, as set forth in this document. Minor changes to the master plan shall be subject to the provisions of Section 10.02.13.E. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual requirements for drive patterns, parking layout and requirements, and development parcel size and configuration. B. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit “A”, such utility and other easements as are necessary shall be established within or along the various tracts. 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, for all or part of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, and the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Exhibit “A”, PUD Master Development Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, if applicable, shall be submitted for any area to be subdivided. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 13 of 31 C. The development of any tract or parcel contemplating fee simple ownership of land shall be required to submit and receive approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in conformance with Section 10.02.04. - Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats of the Collier County Land Development Code, prior to the submittal of construction plans and plat for any portion of the tract or parcel. D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. E. The developer or subsequent owner of any platted parcel or platted tract shall, prior to application for a building permit, submit a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the tract or parcel to the Development Services Department for approval for applicable development subject to the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section 10.02.13.E. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.6 LIMITATIONS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL As provided for within Section 10.02.13.D. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.7 POLLING PLACES As provided for in Section 2.01.04- Polling Places of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.8 PUD MONITORING An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 10.02.13.F. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 14 of 31 SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas so designated on Exhibit “A”, as “A” Parcels. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL “A” It is the intent of this document that “A” designated development parcels be used for commercial purposes which serve the motoring public using Interstate I-75 as well as providing limited commercial goods and services of an area-wide nature for the Naples, Marco Island, Golden Gate and the Immokalee urban areas. Further it is the intent of this document that “A” designated development parcels shall be used in accordance with all current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 3.3 COMMERCIAL USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: (a) Automobile service stations including engine tune-ups and minor repairs, and car wash facilities which are accessory uses. (b) Banks and financial institutions, business and professional offices. (c) Cocktail lounges and commercial entertainment. (d) Convention and exhibition halls. (e) Department stores; drug stores; dry cleaning shops and dry goods stores. (f) Electronic games and furniture sales. (g) Ice cream shops and dairy drive-in stores. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 15 of 31 (h) Motels; hotels and other transient lodging facilities. (i) Research and design labs; restaurants and fast food restaurants. (j) Shopping centers. (k) Souvenir stores and stationery stores. (I) Supermarkets (m) Variety stores; vehicle rental-automobile and U-haul type of vehicles and equipment including outside display; veterinary offices and clinics; no outside kenneling. (n) Any other commercial or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. (b) Caretakers residence. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures (a) Car wash facilities which are principal uses. (b) Permitted uses with less than one thousand (1,000) square feet gross floor area in the principal structure. 3.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in Section 3.3., the following principal uses are permitted on the property described on Tracts 7, 8, 9, on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A. -Amusements and Recreational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999): limited to: - Gymnastics, Instruction, Judo Instruction, Karate Instruction, Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction, and Day Camps. -Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) -Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 16 of 31 -Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) -Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) -Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 8331) -Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) -Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 8621) -Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) -Social Services (SIC Code 8322): Excluding: Alcoholism Counseling, Non-Residential Except Medical Treatment, Offender Rehabilitation Agencies, Parole Offices, Probation Offices, and Offender self-help agencies. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 3.3.2. Residential Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted. 1. In addition to the uses set forth in Section 3.3., 110 multi-family rental dwellings are permitted on the property described on Parcel 11 on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A, as an alternative to Commercial Uses in Section 3.3, subject to the following restrictions: a) Twenty-five (25) units (collectively referred to as “Set Aside Units”) shall be restricted as follows: 1) Twelve (12) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. 2) Thirteen (13) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. b) There will be no income restrictions on the remaining units on Tract 11. However, the remaining units will be rent restricted at a rent equal to or less than rents permitted for households whose incomes are up to and including 120% of the AMI for Collier County. These rent restrictions will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit following conversion of the hotel unit to a multi-family unit. Rent limits may be adjusted annually based on the rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 17 of 31 c) The Set Aside Units shall be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first Set Aside Unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. d) By way of example, the 2024 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits for Collier County are: 2024 Collier County Median Household Income $104,300 Income Limit by Number of People in Unit Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms in Unit Percentage Category 1 2 0 1 2 30% Extremely Low $21,930 $25,050 $548 $587 $704 50% Very Low $36,550 $41,750 $913 $978 $1,173 60% n/a $43,860 $50,100 $1,096 $1,174 $1,408 80% Low $58,480 $66,800 $1,462 $1,566 $1,878 120% Moderate $87,720 $100,200 $2,193 $2,349 $2,817 140% Gap $102,340 $116,900 $2,558 $2,740 $3,286 Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. e) Each Set Aside Unit shall initially be held vacant and advertised for employees of Moorings, Incorporated, and affiliates, or other health care providers, teachers, first responders, hospitality workers and government employees for a minimum of 90 days prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that unit. If any units remain available for rent following the expiration of this 90-day period, then the unit may also be offered to the general public at the rent restricted rate. 1) Each Set Aside Unit will be held vacant and advertised for a minimum of 90 days from the date the unit is first built and for forty-five (45) days after said unit becomes available again for rental, unless it is rented to an income qualifying resident. In the event that no individual identified in subsection A.1.a) above rents the available Set Aside Unit, then the unit may also be offered to the general public, but shall remain a Set Aside Unit and be rent and income restricted accordingly. 2) At a minimum, advertising will consist of providing written notice to the Collier County Community and Human Services Division and the human resource departments for local hospitals, the Collier County Public School District, Collier County Government, other municipalities within Collier County, all EMS and fire districts, and the Collier County Sheriff's Office. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 18 of 31 f) There shall be onsite management at the PUD property at all times. g) No more than two individuals shall be allowed to reside/occupy in a unit at any given time. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with residential units. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard-Twenty-five (25) feet plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. (b) Side Yard - None or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for motels, hotels, multi-family units, and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. (c) Rear Yard -Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront - Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal water line of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on the ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted areas for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. a. Minimum Floor Area for Residential Units: 250 square feet. Pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 13 of Ordinance No. 2023-65 as amended and as codified in Chapter 22, Article IV of the Code of Laws and 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 19 of 31 Ordinances, the minimum unit size for a multi-family dwelling unit is 250 square feet for two occupants. New multi-family units, including redevelopment, shall comply with the minimum size requirements in county ordinances. No more than two individuals shall be allowed to reside/occupy in a unit at any given time. (6) Maximum Density: a. Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotels, motels or transient lodging facilities. b. Residential density: a maximum of 110 multi-family residential rental units may be located on Parcel 11 only (22 dwelling units per acre) as shown on the Master Plan Exhibit A. (7) Distance between Principal Structures on same Site: one-half the sum of the heights. (8) Signs: As required by Section 5.06.00 - SIGN REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSSIFICATION of the Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Section 4.05.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: a. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR-84 and CR-951: CR- 84, 5 feet and CR-951, 10 feet Type D Buffer with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.4. b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with Type A Buffer pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.1. c. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). d. All landscaping requirements of Section 4.06.00 - Landscaping, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 20 of 31 e. Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in SDP applications for each individual development site. f. Landscape buffers for Parcel 11 as shown on the Master Plan, Exhibit A: 5- foot Type A buffers on the north, south and west side of Parcel 11 and a 15- foot Type B buffer on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside of the FPL easement in the median area on the east side of the building in Parcel 11 (See Deviation #1). If the existing building on Parcel 11 is redeveloped all landscaping requirements of LDC section 4.06.00 in effect at the time of redevelopment shall be applicable. (11) Outside Merchandise Storage and displaying: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or by an approved Site Development Plan, outside storage or display of merchandise is prohibited. (12) Uses set forth in Section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, shall meet the standards of the “Activity Center #9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.” Existing buildings and structures, as shown on an SDP approved before the date of adoption of this Ordinance, may remain as non -conforming until redevelopment. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 21 of 31 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial/Industrial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas designated on Exhibit "A" as "B" Parcels. 4.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL “B” It is the intent of this document that “B” designated development parcels be used for both “A” designated uses and for the sale, service, transportation, storage and distribution of goods and service to the traveling public on 1-75 and to the citizens of the area which can be served via the access road systems. A major function of these parcels is to serve as a focal point for the arrival of goods from other points of the region and country and then be processed for distribution to the local trade market. It is intended that inside storage and warehousing along with limited assembly and manufacturing wholly within a building and not obnoxious by reason of emission of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, noise or vibration be permitted. Further, it is the intent of this document that “B” designated Parcels be used in accordance with all of the current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document or as may be approved otherwise by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. 4.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part of other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (a) Any principal use or structure permitted on “A” designated development parcels. (b) Assembly operations in an enclosed building. (c) Building supplies and contractors storage facilities; bulk storage yards not including junk or salvage yards. (d) Car wash, communications service and equipment repair. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 22 of 31 (e) Freight movers and storage. (f) Laboratories, research, design and testing; laundries; lawn maintenance shops and plant nurseries; light manufacturing or processing (include food processing but not abattoir; packaging or fabricating in a completely enclosed building). (g) Miscellaneous uses such as express office; telephone exchange; motor or bus or truck or other transportation terminal and related uses; motorcycle sales, service and repair; museums and tourist attractions. (h) New and used car sales, service and repair including outside display. (i) Offices, general purpose. (j) Warehousing, wholesaling, storage and distributing establishments and similar uses. (k) Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: (1) Any accessory use or structure customarily associated with the permitted uses and structures. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures: (1) Attached residence in conjunction with a business - one (1) per business. (2) Permitted use with less than 1,000 square feet gross floor areas in the principal building. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 23 of 31 4.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in Section 4.3., the following principal uses are permitted on Tracts 16-20, and 24-25 on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A. -Amusements and Recreational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999): limited to: - Gymnastics, Instruction, Judo Instruction, Karate Instruction, Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction, and Day Camps. -Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) -Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) -Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) -Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) -Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 8331) -Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) -Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 8621) -Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) -Social Services (SIC Code 8322): Excluding: Alcoholism Counseling, Non-Residential Except Medical Treatment, Offender Rehabilitation Agencies, Parole Offices, Probation Offices, and Offender self-help agencies. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard -Twenty-five (25) feet. (b) Side Yard - None, or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for hotels, motels and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. Attached residences shall be treated as non-residential. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 24 of 31 (c) Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront- Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal level of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted uses for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. (6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotel, motel and transient lodging facilities. (7) Distance between Structures: One-half the sum of the heights. (8) Signs: As required by Section 5.06.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Section 4.05.00 Off-Street Parking and Loading of the Collier County Land Development Code. (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: a. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR-84 and CR-951: CR- 84, 5 feet and CR-951, 10 feet Type D Buffer with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.4 b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with Type A Buffer pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.1. c. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). d. All landscape requirements of Section 4.06.00 Landscape, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 25 of 31 e. Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in S DP applications for each individual development site. (11) Merchandise Storage and Display: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or an approved Site Development Plan, or of a nature which is permitted generally, outside storage or display or merchandise is prohibited. (12) Uses set forth in Section 4.3.1, shall meet the standards of the “Activity Center #9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.” Existing buildings and structures, as shown on an SDP approved before the date of adoption of this Ordinance, may remain as non-conforming until redevelopment. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 26 of 31 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for the development of the project. 5.2 PUD MASTER PLAN A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. B. The design criteria and layout illustrated in the Master Development Plan shall be interpreted as preliminary and understood to be flexible so that the final design may best satisfy the project and comply with all applicable requirements. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to Staff approval. C. All necessary easements, dedication, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. D. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structure, locations of all improved facilities and location and treatment of buffer areas. 5.3 ENGINEERING A. The developer and all subsequent petitioners are hereby placed on notice that they shall be required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This includes, but is not limited to, Preliminary Subdivision Plats, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result in the issuance of a final or final local development order. B. The project shall be platted in accordance with the Section 10.02.04 - Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats to define the right-of-way, tracts, and water management areas as shown on the master plan. C. Landscaping shall not be placed within the water management areas unless specifically approved by project Review Services. D. Provide a landscape buffer along the entire southern property line in accordance with Section with Section 3.4 (10) and 4.4 (10) of this PUD. E. Should the South Florida Water Management District, during its permit review process, require a natural vegetative buffer be created between the lots and any jurisdictional wetland Preserve and/or Conservation tract, the buffer shall not be located within the boundaries of the lot(s) unless otherwise waived by the South 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 27 of 31 Florida Water Management District. It shall be created as a separate platted tract or as a buffer Easement over an expanded limit of the Preserve tracts, which would be dedicated as Preserve/Drainage tracts, to include the buffer within the Preserve tract. If the buffer is located within a separate tract, that tract shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and if necessary, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All Preserve buffer easements or buffer tracts shall be created in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 704.06, Florida Statutes. F. Land Development Code, Section 6.06.01 - Street System Requirements Dead end streets maximum length not to exceed 1,000 feet: Waived to a maximum length of 1,050 feet. G. Land Development Regulations, Section 6.06.01 - Street System Requirements- All local streets within commercial subdivision shall be designed according to the typical section for collector streets contained in the County Standards. Waived subject to right-of-way and other dimension requirements for the roads to meet local street standards and the pavements structure to meet collector standards. H. Land Development Code, Section 6.01.02 - Easements: Utility easements will be provided as needed with Collier County utility easements (C.U.E.) at a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. I. Land Development Code, Section 6.06.02 - Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathways Requirements. Not waived since existing phase already has sidewalks and it will maintain the continuity for pedestrian's access purposes. 5.4 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 134 Utilities, Section 134-47, Policies and Standards, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. C. The on-site water distribution system to serve the project must be connected to the existing water main on Tollhouse Drive and/or CR-84 rights-of-way consistent with the main sizing requirements specified in the County's Water Master Plan and extended throughout the project. During design of these facilities, dead end mains shall be eliminated by looping the internal pipeline network. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 28 of 31 D. The utility construction documents for the project's sewerage system shall be prepared so that all sewage flowing to the County's master pump station is transmitted by one (1) main on-site pump station. Due to the design and configuration of the master pump station, flow by gravity into the station will not be possible. The Developer's Engineer shall meet with the County Staff prior to commencing preparation of construction drawings, so that all aspects of the sewerage system design can be coordinated with the County's sewer master plan. E. The existing off-site water facilities of the District must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project and reinforced as required, if necessary, consistent with the County's Water Master Plan to insure that the District's water system can hydraulically provide a sufficient quantity of water to meet the anticipated demands of the project and the District's existing committed capacity. F. The existing off-site sewage transmission facilities of the district must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project improved as required outside the project boundary to provide adequate capacity to transport the additional wastewater generated without adverse impact to the existing transmission facilities. 5.5 WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING A. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 03-37, as amended. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lakes(s) in accordance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Excavation. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DEP and USACE permits. D. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum ½ inch of dry pre- treatment on site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. 5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL A. All jurisdictional wetlands and mitigation areas on-site shall be designated as conservation/preserve tracts or easements on all construction pians and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants similar to or as per Chapter 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 29 of 31 B. In the case of mitigation off-site any purchase must be within the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) or the Corkscrew Regional Ecological Watershed Lands (CREW) or other areas approved for mitigation by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The ultimate transfer of deed(s) of land(s) to Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands must occur prior to final construction plan/plat approvals. C. Control structures on-site shall be constructed in accordance with State and Federal permits. 5.7 WATER MANAGEMENT A. Detailed paving, grading, and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Excavation. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DEP and USACE permits. D. A copy of SFWMD Permit or Early Work Permit is required prior to construction plan approval. E. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum ½ inch of dry pre- treatment on- site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. 5.8 TRANSPORTATION A. The final location of major access points along Davis Boulevard shall be determined during the approval of the Final Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan. Such major access points shall provide primary access and internal road circulation and shall typically include turn land improvements based on projected traffic conditions. Secondary access points between Davis Boulevard and individual parcels shall be prohibited unless approved consistent with the Final Subdivision Plat as may be amended and with the following access control criteria: 1. safety 2. proper geometric design 3. effects on the capacity of Davis Boulevard 4. traffic volumes using the proposed access point 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 30 of 31 5. other roadways providing access to the site 6. the combined effect of access to any and all tracts both within this PUD and adjacent PUD's 7. spacing of access points Collier County reserves the right to close any approved secondary access to and from Davis Boulevard should it at any time be found to create a traffic hazard or to adversely affect the capacity or level of service of that roadway. B. The road impact fee shall be as set forth in Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 74, as amended, and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners. C. Access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee credits and shall be in place before any certificates of occupancy are issued. D. All traffic control devices used shall conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as required by Chapter 316.0747 Florida Statutes. E. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy following conversion of the hotel unit to a multi-family unit for Parcel 11, a sidewalk will be constructed from Tollgate Boulevard to the building. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 31 of 31 SECTION VI DEVIATIONS As to Parcel 11 as shown on the Master Plan attached hereto: DEVIATION #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.A, which requires Type B landscape buffers to separate residential and commercial development, to allow for 5-foot Type A buffers on the north, south and west side of Parcel 11 and for a 15-foot Type B buffer on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside of the FPL easement in the median area on the east side of the building in Parcel 11. This deviation applies to the reuse of the existing building on Parcel 11 only and does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished or if the existing adjacent parking lot is redeveloped with a new use. DEVIATION #2 seeks relief from LDC section 4.05.04 G, which requires 1 parking space per multi-family dwelling unit plus 0.5 spaces per each efficiency unit as well as additional parking for recreational facilities and other common uses identified in LDC section 4.05.04 G Table 17, to allow for a total of 165 parking spaces to satisfy the parking requirement within Parcel 11. This deviation does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment REVISED MASTER PLAN 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) MAF'Ii MASTER 6; DEVELOPMENT PLAN r TOLLGATE Z COMMERCIAL CENTER A January, 1991 oo 8 p W rW 1 Zti• .. 7.WaJ 1 ill1 g .,. ir1 jam ty o?oao t tir}alt; rn t. WaV ti• 0: p at NA w F t,+ 14:I;M.: AI IX DRIVE 1fix: v~, t, C F yn W 4rI W : 1.' 0 •4115:: _ 11111 a. gr t, F Ma w.w •4 4HIII Li cz 0.y , ct C 1 1ii ti. BUSH BOULEVARD-Q C 1:ti j IL F1'&I.F.AS F'.V,FVT t t g_ W go A fil re W.§ a W TOLLGATE BLVD. W N r t ( t W F e a h3 t Q tom Z L1 4 ' 4 MIN C. R. 951 VIEW .. C r.1 EXHIBIT B Parcel 11 will provide a maximum of 110 multi-family residential dwelling units1Deviation ##9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 592Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment SCHEDULE OF DEVIATIONS & JUSTIFICATIONS 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Page 1 TOLLGATE HOUSING PUDA Schedule of Deviations and Justifications DEVIATION #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.A, which requires 15-foot Type B landscape buffers to separate residential and commercial development, to allow for 5-foot Type “A” buffers on the north, south and west side of Parcel 11; AND for a 15-foot Type “B” buffer on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside of the FPL easement in the median area on the east side of the building in Parcel 11. This deviation applies to the reuse of the existing building on Parcel 11 only and does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished or if the existing adjacent parking lot is redeveloped with a new use. JUSTIFICATION: The Applicant is requesting this buffer deviation applicable to Parcel 11 for the reuse of the hotel for affordable multifamily dwellings. The subject property is currently developed as a Super 8 Motel and 5-foot Type A buffers were required for commercial uses in the PUD. This deviation proposes to maintain the buffer standards that were in place for the north, south and east property boundaries when the motel was developed, and which now include mature vegetation. Additionally, the easternmost portion of the property is encumbered by an FPL easement and mature vegetation exists within the median area on the east side of the building. The deviation would also require additional planting in this area to satisfy the requirements for a 15-foot Type B buffer. Adjacent properties to the south and east of the property include low intensity storage and parking uses. This deviation reflects the fact that the parcel will not change and differs from traditional multi-family housing which includes yards, common green space, or lanais and balconies which interface directly with external surrounding uses with higher levels of commercial traffic. Approval of the deviation provides significant cost savings to delivering bonafide affordable housing to the market. LDC section 4.06.02.A notes that existing landscaping shall be brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible when the vehicular use areas is altered or expanded, the building square footage is changed, or a use is discontinued for one year. The tr ansition of the property to allow for multi-family uses will not require alteration or expansion of the vehicular use area, or any change to the building square footage, and there has not been a discontinuance of use. In addition to maintaining the intent of the Landscape Code, this deviation maximizes the use and benefit of existing mature landscaping on site and facilitates the rapid conversion of units to permanent multifamily dwelling units. For these reasons, the requested deviation will not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Schedule of Deviations and Justifications Tollgate Housing PUDA Page 2 of 2 DEVIATION #2 seeks relief from LDC section 4.05.04 G, which requires 1 parking space per multi-family dwelling unit plus 0.5 spaces per each efficiency unit as well as additional parking for recreational facilities and other common uses identified in LDC section 4.05.04 G Table 17, to allow for a total of 165 parking spaces to satisfy the parking requirement within Parcel 11. This deviation does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished. JUSTIFICATION: The Applicant is requesting this parking deviation for the reuse of the existing building on Parcel 11. The current hotel use will transition to a multi-family building with limited site work. This deviation will allow for the existing parking spaces to continue to serve the residents on the property. All recreation facilities serving the residents are integrated with the development and not intended to serve the general public. Additionally, all residences are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and located in the same building. As a result, no additional parking spaces will be needed for residents to utilize the recreation facilities. This deviation is only proposed to apply to the reuse of the existing building. If the existing building is demolished for redevelopment of the site, the parking space requirements in effect at that time would apply. For these reasons, the requested deviation will not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare. 15-Foot Type B Buffer 5-Foot Type A Buffer 5-Foot Type A Buffer 5-Foot Type A Buffer FPL Easement 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment EVALUATION CRITERIA 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Page 1 TOLLGATE HOUSING PUDA Evaluation Criteria LDC section 10.02.13 B.5 requires the Planning Commission hearing and recommendation to be based on the following criteria: 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 subject property is located within the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD, established by Ordinance 92-10 and which has been amended several times by Ordinances 93-91, 2015-49, and 2017-15. The Property is located in an area of existing and planned urban development within the County’s Urban-designated area and within the Interchange Activity Center future land use category. Section C.2 of the Future Land Use Element anticipates a mix of uses within Interchange Activity Centers, stating, “mixed-use developments‒whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building‒are allowed and encouraged within Interchange Activity Centers.” The subject property is located in an urbanized portion of the County as evidenced by the property’s proximity to Collier Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway. The Property is also proximate to existing and approved urban levels of development, as well as major public facilities including schools, hospitals, and libraries. The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD is located south of Interstate 75, east of Collier Blvd. and north of Beck Blvd. To the north of the subject property is the Interstate 75, a parking lot to the east, self-storage to the south and a hotel to the west. The subject property will be accessed by Tollgate Blvd. via Beck Blvd. and Collier Blvd., a County Maintained arterial road. The surrounding PUD approvals demonstrate the appropriateness of this request to provide an infill housing project in an area proximate to employment uses and existing and planned development at similar densities. The Property is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s (CCWSD) service area and water and wastewater service are readily available via existing facilities. A utility statement of availability is enclosed as part of this application. Based upon the nature of the surrounding uses, the established development pattern along Collier Blvd., and the existing levels of public infrastructure available, the Property is suitable for the development of a residential community as proposed by this application. 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. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Evaluation Criteria Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA Page 2 of 5 The subject property is under unified control by K2 Housing Naples LLC, Inc, who has filed this application, as demonstrated by the Covenant of Unified Control included in the PUDA application. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed changes maintain the project’s consistency with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. More specifically, the following policies in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) FLUE Policy 5.5: “Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County’s Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services.” The proposed development will reuse an existing building within the urban area rather than relocating to undeveloped, non-urban areas of the Future Land Use Map. As a reuse project, the request establishes a creative land use planning technique and an innovative approach to development that will increase the diversity of housing types in Collier County. Although the request does not create an innovative approach to development within the Agricultural/Rural designated area, the reuse of existing urban areas in new and creative also has the effect of reducing development pressures in more rural areas of the County, thereby supporting this policy. 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 proposed change maintains compatibility with the surrounding land uses by reusing a building previously used for temporary lodging. Transitioning the property from a hotel to multifamily dwellings will reduce traffic impacts associated with the PUD. The proposed change is complementary to surrounding land uses as it provides affordable workforce housing in proximity to goods, services, and employment areas. 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 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 request supports this policy by reusing existing urban areas rather than locating the development in undeveloped areas. The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD is currently served by existing public facilities and services and the request does not require extension of urban services to new areas. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Evaluation Criteria Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA Page 3 of 5 FLUE Policy 7.1: “The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code.” The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD/DRI includes established connection points to Beck Blvd. and the proposed change will maintain those connections. The subject property will be accessed by Beck Blvd. via Tollgate Blvd. and there are no additional connections proposed. FLUE Policy 7.2: “The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.” The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD/DRI includes several public roads throughout and adjacent to the development which provide access to other areas of the PUD. This application does not propose any change to the road layout. FLUE Policy 7.4: “The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.” This application is consistent with this policy as it does not include any changes to the previously approved uses, intensity, or open space. Existing sidewalk facilities within the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD provide for walkability and connect to nearby commercial areas along Tollgate Blvd., Beck Blvd., and at various locations throughout the PUD. FLUE Policy 7.5: “The County shall encourage mixed-use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or abutting commercial development. This Policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific Subdistricts in this Growth Management Plan.” The request supports this policy to encourage mixed-use development through the addition of residential uses abutting commercial development. The companion GMP amendment proposes to amend the Activity Center #9 subdistrict to establish a maximum residential density on this parcel. CCME Objective 6.1: “Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. (The Policies under this Objective apply to all of Collier County except for that portion of the County which is identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.)” This application is limited to the reuse of an existing, developed, hotel site. No changes are proposed to previously approved preservation requirements. Established preserves within the PUD are demonstrated on the Master Concept Plan. 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 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Evaluation Criteria Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA Page 4 of 5 species designated by various federal agencies as Endangered and Threatened species published in 50 CFR 17.)” This application is consistent with this policy as it is not located within, nor propose impacts to listed animal species and their habitats. The existing building and paved areas are not proposed to be changed, and this application only facilitates the reuse of the property for multifamily dwellings. Housing Element Goal 1: TO CREATE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF DECENT, SAFE, SANITARY, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY. This application is consistent with this goal as it provides 110 new decent, safe, sanitary and reasonably priced housing units to be rented to employers and employees for local businesses to attract and retain employees. As an adaptive reuse project, the application provides the additional benefit of locating these new units in close proximity to employment uses. Additionally, the proposed GMP amendment and Rezone include commitments to provide affordable housing through income and rent limits. 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 PUD is located in Activity Center #9 which is anticipated to include a mix of uses, densities and intensities. The amendment limits proposed changes to Parcel 11, which is currently developed as a hotel. Transitioning Parcel 11 from a hotel to residential use improves compatibility with external uses through the reduction of intensity and traffic impacts. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The PUDA does not propose any changes to the open space requirements of the PUD. Open space within the PUD is currently provided through 17.84 acres (17.8% of the gross PUD acreage) of Preserve and water management areas. Other useable open space is provided in the development areas within required yards, landscaped areas, and recreation areas throughout the PUD. The combination of Preserves and open space within the development area exceeds the requirement for 30 percent of the gross acreage of the PUD in LDC section 4.07.02.G.2. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. As outlined in the enclosed application, all required public infrastructure is available and adequate to service the proposed PUD. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. This PUDA application does not propose expansion to areas outside the existing PUD boundary. There are also no proposed increases in vehicular trips or increases in development intensity. All changes proposed in this application are limited to Parcel 11 within the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Evaluation Criteria Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA Page 5 of 5 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. The proposed development is generally consistent with the PUD regulations contained in the LDC. The Applicant is requesting one deviation from the LDC in order to support the reuse development project. The reuse of the property will uphold the intent of the PUD regulations and ensure design consistency, internal connectivity, and integration of dwelling types, appropriate vehicular circulation, and the protection of public health, safety and welfare. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment AERIAL MAP & SURROUNDING USES 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAPS 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 ● www.colliercountyfl.gov Zoning Services Section July 5, 2022 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North #300 Naples, FL 34103 ZLTR-PL20220004225; Zoning Verification Letter for 3880 Tollgate Blvd. AKA Tollgate Commercial Center Phase I, Parcel 2 and W15ft of the W1/2 of Parcel 1 Bounded by the Prolongation of NLY and SLY Lines of Parcel 2 in Section 35, Township 49, Range 26 of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. Property ID/Folio Number: 76885005005. Mr. Yovanovich, This letter is in response to a Zoning Verification Letter (ZLTR) Application that you submitted on or about June 9, 2022. The applicant’s questions are listed below in bold, followed by staff’s response. A response to a follow up question, submitted after the applicant’s initial submission (see attached email from Ray Bellows on 7/01/2022) is included. Zoning: The current official zoning atlas, an element of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Ordinance 04-41, as amended, reveals the subject property is located within the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD). 1. Are long term leases for hotel rooms permitted in Collier County? If no, does it matter if the long- term lease is with a business, and the subtenant lease for the person living in the room is short term? There is no LDC restriction regarding the maximum stay permitted at hotel rooms; the applicable zoning therefore allows long term leases for hotel rooms. 2. What is the maximum length of stay for a single hotel guest within the PUD zoning district? Tollgate Commercial Center PUD does not regulate a minimum or maximum length of stay for hotel guests. 3. Can our client charge guests a daily rate, or do they have to charge them a monthly rate? Hotel rates are not regulated by the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD or LDC. However, the LDC definition for hotel (see attached) does allow for the operator to charge their guests on a daily basis. 4. What constitutes a guest staying for less than the maximum allowed period? That is, how is the end period and turnover of the unit defined? Tollgate Commercial Center PUD does not regulate a minimum or maximum length of stay for hotel guests. It also doesn’t regulate the turnover of the motel unit. 5. Given that my client will have long term master leases (over 1 year) with local employers to house their essential workers from nurses to housekeepers to potentially teachers and other public servants, do they need to continue paying hotel bed and lodging taxes? The LDC does not regulate the taxing of specific uses. For more information about the Collier County Tourist Development Tax, please contact TouristTax@colliertax.com or call 239-252-8829. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-PL20220004225 Page 2 of 2 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 ● www.colliercountyfl.gov 6. If yes, do they need to continue paying hotel bed and lodging taxes after the first 6 months of a long-term lease? See answer to question 5. 7. Does my client need to pay the taxes if they have a one year lease with a tenant or subtenant, but offer a sixty (60) day opt-out period that can be exercised no earlier than seven (7) months after executing the lease? See answer to question 5. 8. Can my client install kitchenettes and fire sprinklers under the current PUD zoning district? Kitchenettes and fire sprinklers are allowable accessory uses under permitted use (h) in the PUD Ord. 92 - 10, “Motels; hotels and other transient lodging facilities”. Please contact Jonathan Walsh concerning the Building Code requirements for converting an existing transient lodging facility into residential dwelling units. 9. The applicant is requesting conformation that the residential density applies to the entire PUD boundary but excludes the Industrial zoned tracts. They also want confirmation of the maximum density for a commercial/residential mixed-use tract proposed for the Tollgate PUD. Tollgate Commercial Center PUD is located within Interchange Activity Center #9. Per the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), mixed-use developments within the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict are intended to consist of residential and commercial projects. If there is a conversion of existing commercial use to residential, the density for the resulting mixed-use project is therefore calculated based on only the gross commercial acreage within the PUD and excludes any industrial acreage. The eligible density for Activity Center #9 is sixteen dwelling units/acre. The information presented in this verification letter is based on the Collier County LDC and/or Growth Management Plan in effect as of this date. It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to either of these documents could affect the validity of this verification letter. It is also possible that development of the subject property could be affected by other issues not addressed in this letter, such as, but not limited to, concurrency related to the provision of adequate public facilities, environmental impact, and other requirements of the Collier County LDC or related ordinances. This letter represents a determination of Zoning Services Section staff. Should you disagree with this determination, you may request an Official Interpretation by the Zoning Director of the provisions of the Land Development Code pursuant to Sections 1.06.01.A and 10.02.02.F.1 of that Code. The fee for an Official Interpretation is identified in the most recent GMD Fee Schedule Resolution as approv ed by the Board of County Commissioners. To obtain copies of any document referenced herein, please contact GMD Records Section at (239) 252-5730 or at GMDRecordsRoom@colliercountyfl.gov. The LDC may be viewed online at www.municode.com / Municode Library / Florida / Collier County. Validated Ordinances may be viewed online via the Clerk of Court’s website, www.collierclerk.com / Records Search / BMR Records / Boards, Minutes, Records / BMR Validated Ordinances. Disclaimer: Issuance of a development permit by the County does not 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. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-PL20220004225 Page 2 of 2 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 ● www.colliercountyfl.gov Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call my office at (239) 252-1442. Researched and prepared by: Reviewed by: __________________________________ ___________________________________ Rachel Hansen, Principal Planner Raymond Bellows, Zoning Manager Comprehensive Planning Section Zoning Services Section 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) $ 0 $ 3,200,000 $ 3,080,000 $ 0 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,778,749 $ 2,237,685 $ 4,016,434 $ 4,016,434 $ 4,016,434 $ 4,016,434 Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Summar y Parcel No 76885005005 SiteAddress*Disclaimer 3880TOLLGATEBLVD Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34114 Name / Address LAXMI OF NAPLES LLC 3880 TOLLGATE BLVD City NAPLES State FL Zip 34114-5444 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres  *Estimated 4B35 664000PH 1 24B35 35 49 26 4.33 Legal TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE I, PARCEL 2 AND W15FT OF THE W1/2OF PARCEL 1 BOUNDED BY THE PROLONGATION OF NLY AND SLY LINES OFPARCEL 2 Millage Area 31 Millage Rates   *Calculations Sub./Condo 664000 - TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CTR PH 1 School Other Total Use Code 39 - HOTELS, MOTELS 4.889 6.7155 11.6045 Latest Sales Histor y (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 07/16/15 5180-2026 10/02/08 4397-3297 07/03/00 2693-2184 08/02/89 1466-503 08/01/89 1462-338  2021 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll   9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No 76885005005 SiteAddress*Disclaimer 3880TOLLGATEBLVD Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34114 Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) I - 75 R/W COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)100' R/W CANALBECK BOULEVARD PUD 2 16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24 (PU-2) 1 1 12 2 9 2 TOLLHOUSE DR.TOLLGATE BLVD.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 PH. 2 PH. 1 WHITE LAKE BOULEVARD CU 11 PUD 12,21,25 WHITE LAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK V 13 35 35 23.20 AC.PARCEL 35A 560 140640 1220760 9001000NON-ST ST ST NON-ST TRACT 15 TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT TRACT 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 D 3 3 3 3 HEFLIN DRMANNIX DRTOLLHOUSE DRTOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER 8A 1 2345 6 7 DTRACT 1A 1 TRACTD SHAW BOULEVARD TRACTB 5 5 5 5 5 10 11 9 8 7 6 5 12 13 4 3 2 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 TRACT A TRACT BPLOVER AVENUE SHEARWATER STREET6 6 6 6 6 6 5 29 28 27 30 32 26 31 33 25 PLOVER AVENUE 24 34 23 22 35 36 37 38 TRACT B 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 DRI INCOME47 43 44 LANE46 45 8 8 88 ST/W-4 17 TRACTB TRACTD TRACTD TRACTD 3,4,5,6,7,9,10,14,15, 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 3 3 3 I 26 2 3 3 TRACT A LAST REVISION: ZONING ___________________ OTHER ___________________SUBDIVISON INDEX ATTEST___________________________CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TWP 49S RNG 26E SEC(S) 35 SO 1/2 MAP NUMBER: BY___________________________CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION$ INDICATES SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY 9635S 0602N9634S 9636S9635N The Historic/Archaeological Probability Maps are the officialCounty source designating historic or archaeologic resources.NO. NAME P.B. Pg. 1 TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE 1 16 12 TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE 2 18 23-243 TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE 3 22 95-1004 WHITE LAKE PHASE 1 23 855 WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK 31 26-286 WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK PHASE THREE 34 45-467 WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK PHASE TWO 40 12-148 WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK PHASE FOUR 42 42-439 TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER REPLAT 68 67-6810 ZONING NOTES1 DELETED2 1-12-82 PU-81-20-C 82-73 1-17-84 R-83-18C 84-64 6-12-90 PDA-90-1 90-545 6-12-90 DOA-90-1 90-546 1-17-84 DRI-83-2C 84-67 12-11-90 PDA-90-5 90-28 LDC-919 2-11-92 PUD-83-18(3) 92-1010 2-11-92 DOA-91-2 92-10011 8-11-92 CU-92-8 92-5612 1-5-93 PUD-92-8 93-113 9-28-93 C-93-19 93-42514 12-14-93 PUD-93-18(4) 93-9115 2-11-97 DOA-96-5 97-7516 12-2-03 DOA-03-AR-3911 03-42817 9-25-12 LDC ORD. 12-3818 10-28-14 DOA-PL-14-561 14-22919 2-11-97 DOA-97-2 97-7420 4-7-92 DOA-92-4 92-22221 1-9-02 LDC ORD. 02-0322 9-22-15 PUDA-PL-15-281 15-4923 9-22-15 DOA-PL-15-545 15-19324 5-9-17 PUDA-PL-15-2280 17-1525 9-25-18 PUDA-PL-17-4428 18-4526 9-22-20 RZ-PL-19-2018 20-26THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-41 OF THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004, AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISION INDEX REFERENCED HEREON. NO. NAME P.B. Pg. 11121314151617181920 INDICATES ACTIVITY CENTER #9 OVERLAY BOUNDARY 0 400 SCALE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MODIFICATIONS1 4-2-19 ZVL(CUD)-PL-18-209 HEX 19-162 1-27-21 CUD-PL-20-1534 HEX 21-063 11-11-21 CUD-PL-21-661 HEX 21-5012/6/20219.A.3.d Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) • Hotel (also motel): A building or group of buildings offering transient lodging accommodations normally on a daily rate to the general public , with or without accessory uses, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, or recreational facilities. Hotel shall mean a facility offering transient lodging accommodations normally on a daily rate to the general public and typically providing accessory uses, such as: restaurants, meeting rooms and recreational facilities. Hotels are different than motels in that each room does not have a separate entry directly from the outside of the building but rather entry is gained through the interior of the building through a lobby. For the purposes of calculating water and sewer impact fees, a hotel and resort hotel are considered to be non -residential uses. • Destination resort hotel: A transient lodging facility (i.e. - less than six months occupancy) where patrons generally stay for several days in order to u tilize, enjoy, or otherwise participate in certain amenities, natural or man -made, including but not limited to: (i) direct access to the Gulf of Mexico, (ii) on -site golf course and golf-related facilities, (iii) health spa and/or fitness center, (iv) oth er recreational amenities and on - site services, including full dining services and cocktail lounge, entertainment rooms for video and movies, and concierge services. Except that, for destination resort hotels fronting on the Gulf of Mexico, an on -site golf course is not required. In all cases, a destination resort hotel must include full dining services and a cocktail lounge, and not less than 25 percent of the gross floor area must be devoted to common usage and support service areas, such as but not limit ed to fitness room, health spa, media room, meeting rooms, dining and lounge facilities, and spaces in support of hotel functions. • Short-Term Vacation Rental. A "Short-Term Vacation Rental" means the rental of any habitable space, including a room, apartment, living quarters, in any residential building, including but not limited to, condominiums, single -family or multi-family homes, for a term of six months or less, as provided in F.S. § 125 .0104(3)(a), as amended, unless such person rents, leases, or lets for consideration any living quarters or accommodations which are exempt according to the provisions of F.S. ch. 212. Any Owner who is not required to register with the Florida Department o f Business and Professional Regulation, as defined by F.S. ch. 509, is exempt from this ordinance. • Dwelling (also called dwelling unit): Any building, or part thereof, constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for no more than 1 fami ly, and physically separated from any other rooms or housekeeping establishments which may be in the same structure. A dwelling unit contains sleeping facilities, sanitary facilities, and a kitchen. • Dwelling, multi-family: A group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-36, adopted October 26, 2021 66 uses: personal indoor self-storage facilities – this use shall occupy no greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; offices for various contractor/builder construction trade specialists inclusive of the offices of related professional disciplines and services that typically serve those construction businesses or otherwise assist in facilitating elements of a building and related infrastructure, including but not limited to architects, engineers, land surveyors and attorneys – these offices of related professional disciplines and services shall occupy no greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; warehouse space for various contractor/builder construction trades occupants; mortgage and land title companies; related businesses including but not limited to lumber and other building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores, garden supply stores – all as accessory uses only, accessory to offices for various contractor/builder construction trade specialists or accessory to warehouse space for various contractor/builder construction trades occupants; management associations of various types of buildings or provision of services to buildings/properties; and, fitness centers. (XXX) The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #14 (Goodlette- Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway) is 45 acres; the balance of the land uses shall be limited to non-commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers. (XV) 3. The location and configuration of all land uses within a Master Planned Activity Center shall be compatible with and related to existing site features, surrounding development, and existing natural and manmade constraints. Commercial uses shall be oriented so as to provide coordinated and functional transportation access to major roadways serving the Activity Center, and functionally related or integrated with surrounding land uses and the planned transportation network. (XV) 4. Adjacent properties within the Activity Center that are not under the unified control of the applicant shall be considered and appropriately incorporated (i.e. pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular interconnections) into the applicant’s Master Plan. (XLIV) New Mixed Use Activity Centers may be proposed if all of the following criteria are met and an amendment is made to delineate the specific boundaries on the Future Land Use Map series for Mixed Use Activity Centers: • the intersection around which the Mixed Use Activity Center is located consists of an arterial and collector road, or two arterial roads, based upon roadway classifications contained in the Transportation Element. • the Mixed Use Activity Center is no closer than two (2) miles from any existing Mixed Use Activity Center, as measured from the center point of the intersections around which the existing and proposed Mixed Use Activity Centers are located. • market justification is provided demonstrating the need for a Mixed Use Activity Center at the proposed location. 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict: (XV) Interchange Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map at three of the County’s four Interstate 75 interchanges and include numbers 4, 9 and 10; there is no Activity Center at the new I-75/Golden Gate Parkway interchange. The boundaries of these Interchange Activity Centers have been specifically defined on the maps located at the end of this Section as part of the Future Land Use Map Series. Any changes to the boundaries of these Interchange Activity Centers shall require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map Series. (XLIV) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2017-22 on June 13, 2017 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-36, adopted October 26, 2021 67 Interchange Activity Centers #4 (I-75 at Immokalee Road) and #10 (I-75 at Pine Ridge Road) allow for the same mixture of land uses as allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers; additionally, industrial uses, as identified below, are allowed in the southwest and southeast quadrants of Interchange Activity Center #4. No industrial uses shall be allowed in Interchange Activity Center #10. The actual mix of uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. Interchange Activity Center #9 (I-75 at Collier Boulevard) is subject to an Interchange Master Plan (IMP), which was adopted by Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners, and to the implementing provisions adopted into the Land Development Code. (LXI) All new projects within Activity Center #9 are encouraged to have a unified plan of development in the form of a Planned Unit Development. However, the 3.7-acre property formerly utilized by the Florida Highway Patrol Headquarters located east of the Tollgate PUD/DRI may be split into 2 parcels and one of the parcels being 3.4 acres will be permitted to utilize conventional zoning. [This portion of Activity Center #9 is depicted on a FLUM Series Inset Map.] The mixture of uses allowed in Interchange Activity Center #9 shall include all land uses allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers; additionally, industrial uses shall be allowed in the northeast and southeast quadrants of I-75 and Collier Boulevard, and in the southwest quadrant of Collier and Davis Boulevards. The above allowed uses notwithstanding, commercial zoning shall not exceed 55% of the total acreage (635.9 ac.) of Interchange Activity Center #9. The actual mix of uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, and based on the adopted IMP. For residential-only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be allowed. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential-only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. (XV) Mixed-use developments ‒ whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building - are allowed and encouraged within Interchange Activity Centers. Such mixed-use projects are intended to be developed at a human- scale, pedestrian-oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects – whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project shall not be distributed outside of the Activity Center. Based on the unique location and function of Interchange Activity Centers, some Industrial land uses ‒ those that serve regional markets and derive specific benefit when located in the Interchange Activity Centers ‒ shall be allowed in the Activity Center quadrants previously identified. These uses shall be limited to: manufacturing, warehousing, storage, and distribution. During the rezone process, each such use shall be reviewed to determine if it will be compatible with existing and approved land uses. (LXI) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2020-25 on September 22, 2020 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-36, adopted October 26, 2021 68 The following conditions shall be required to ensure compatibility of Industrial land uses with other land uses allowed in the Interchange Activity Centers; to maintain the appearance of these Interchange Activity Centers as gateways to the community; and to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, glare or fumes to the adjacent property owners. The Planned Unit Development and/or rezoning ordinance shall contain specific language regarding the permitted Industrial land uses, compatibility requirements, and development standards consistent with the following conditions. Site-specific development details will be reviewed during the Site Development Plan review process. a. Landscaping, buffering and/or berming shall be installed along the Interstate; b. Fencing shall be wooden or masonry; c. Wholesale and storage uses shall not be permitted immediately adjacent to the right-of- way of the Interstate; d. Central water and sewage systems shall be required; (XV) e. Ingress and egress shall be consistent with State Access Management Plans, as applicable; f. No direct access to the Interstate right-of-way shall be permitted; g. Joint access and frontage roads shall be established when frontage is not adequate to meet the access spacing requirements of the Access Control Policy, Activity Center Access Management Plan provisions, or State Access Management Plans, as applicable; h. Access points and median openings shall be designed to provide adequate turning radii to accommodate truck traffic and to minimize the need for U-turn movements; i. The developer shall be responsible to provide all necessary traffic improvements to include traffic signals, turn lanes, deceleration lanes, and other improvements deemed necessary ‒ as determined through the rezoning process; and, j. A maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the designated Industrial land uses component of the projects shall be established at 0.45. (V)(VI)(XV) 3. Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict: This Subdistrict consists of two parcels; one parcel consists of 17.5 acres and is located at the southeast quadrant of Livingston Road, a collector roadway, and Pine Ridge Road, a minor arterial roadway. The second parcel consists of 10.47 acres and is located at the northwest quadrant of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. In addition to uses allowed in the Plan, the intent of the Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict is to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance and to provide commercial services in an acceptable manner along a new collector roadway. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring commercial, public use and high density residential properties and will utilize well-planned access points to improve current and future traffic flows in the area. (VI)(XV) a. Southeast Quadrant If permitted by the South Florida Water Management District, emergency access to the North Naples Fire District fire station located immediately east of the property will be provided improving response times to all properties located south along Livingston Road. Interconnection to abutting properties immediately to the South and immediately to the East will be studied and provided if deemed feasible, as a part of the rezoning action relating to the subject property. (XV) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2007-18 on January 25, 2007 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 1 HansenRachel From:BellowsRay Sent:Friday, July 1, 2022 11:27 AM To:HansenRachel Subject:Super 8 ZVL Hi Rachel, As we discussed earlier today, the applicant is requesting conformation that the residential density applies to the entire PUD boundary but excludes the Industrial zoned tracts. They also want confirmation of the maximum density for a commercial/residential mixed-use tract proposed for the Tollgate PUD. Thanks Ray Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 Exceeding expectations, every day! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD PUD Amendment EXPEDITED REVIEW FORM 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPEDITED REVIEW Name of Development: _Tollgate Commercial Center_ Address/Location: ___3880 Tollgate Boulevard (Parcels 76885005005 and 76885005102)______ Applicant /Agent: __RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture c/o Jem Frantz, AICP Phone / Email: _(239) 357-9580 jfrantz@rviplanning.com__________________ Size of Property: ___5+/- acres____________________________________________________ Proposed Use: _ Residential________________________________ Total Number Residential Units Planned: 110 dwelling units Number of Affordable Housing Units Planned: Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 121% - 140% AMI - GAP Income Rental _13_OR Owner Occupied _13__ 81% - 120% AMI - Moderate Income Rental _12_OR Owner Occupied _12__ 51% - 80% AMI - Low Income Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 50% or less AMI - Very Low Income Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 30% or less AMI - Extremely Low Income Permit Number, if available: __PL2023007874 & PL20230007875 & PL20230007876_____________ Proposed Land Use Restriction: X - PUD Restriction or AHDB Agreement -Developer Agreement -Impact Fee Deferral Agreement -Grant Restriction -Other: __________________________ I hereby certify that the above described project meets the definition of providing affordable Housing in Collier County and as such is entitled to participate in the County’s “Expedited Review Procedures of Affordable Housing” as described in the Collier County Administrative Code through Resolution No. 2018-40. By: Date: Community and Human Services Division By: Date: Jan 17, 2024_______ Builder/ Owner/ Developer/ Contractor This Certification must be submitted to the Growth Management Department with permit application package, or plan revisions, within nine months of date of issuance. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Att C - Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Hearing Backup (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Page 1 Tollgate Housing PUDA & GMPA NIM Summary RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) for the Tollgate Housing PUDA and GMPA. The meeting was held on Wednesday, June 26, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. at the Sheperd of the Glades Church located at 6020 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Naples, FL 34113 and virtually via Zoom. A sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit “A”. Two Collier County staff and members of the public attended. A copy of the legal notice, affidavit of publication, a copy of the letter sent to surrounding property owners, and a list of the surrounding property owners are attached as Exhibit “B”. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Att D - Tollgate NIM Summary (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Exhibit A – Sign In Sheet 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Att D - Tollgate NIM Summary (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 624Attachment: Att D - Tollgate NIM Summary (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) Exhibit B – Meeting Notice 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Att D - Tollgate NIM Summary (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Att D - Tollgate NIM Summary (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Att D - Tollgate NIM Summary (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture • 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Sutie 305 • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 • 239.405.7777 • www.rviplanning.com June 7, 2024 RE: Tollgate Housing Subdistrict GMPA-PL20230007876 & Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA-PL20230007874 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that K2 Housing Naples, LLC has filed a Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230007876) and a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) application (PL20230007874) with Collier County. The applications will amend the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD to allow 110 multifamily rental dwelling units (22 dwelling units per acre) on Parcel 11 as an alternative to the 104 motel units known as Super 8 by Wyndham. Of the 110 dwelling units, 25 units will be income restricted as affordable. The amendments also allow minimum unit sizes of 250 square feet and add deviations related to required landscaping and parking spaces applicable to the subject property. The portion of the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD which is subject to these requests comprises approximately 5+/- acres and is generally located at the north end of Tollgate Blvd in unincorporated Collier County, Florida (see attached project location map). In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 26, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. at the Shepherd of the Glades Church, 6020 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Naples, FL 34113. Attending virtually is also available via Zoom. Please visit www.zoom.us, click on “Join A Meeting” in the top right corner, and enter Zoom Meeting ID: 818 2476 1884, Passcode: 580063. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 357- 9580 or jfrantz@rviplanning.com. Sincerely, RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture Jem Frantz, AICP Project Director 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Att D - Tollgate NIM Summary (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 2 of 2 Hacienda Lakes MPUD (PDI) PL20230016103 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Att D - Tollgate NIM Summary (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 COUNTRY CITY STATE USZIP CREEKSIDE TOLLGATE LLC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWAY USA NAPLES FL 34105 CREEKSIDE TOLLGATE LLC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWAY USA NAPLES FL 34105 CREEKSIDE TOLLGATE LLC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWAY USA NAPLES FL 34105 CREEKSIDE TOLLGATE LLC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWAY USA NAPLES FL 34105 CREEKSIDE TOLLGATE LLC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWAY USA NAPLES FL 34105 TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER % A M PAPINEAU 1165 CLAM CT APT 13 USA NAPLES FL 34102 CREEKSIDE TOLLGATE LLC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWAY USA NAPLES FL 34105 ISTORAGE PO LLC 8400 EAST PRENTICE AVE #900 USA GREENWOOD VILLAG CO 80111 CREEKSIDE TOLLGATE LLC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWAY USA NAPLES FL 34105 CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE INC PO BOX 787 USA LEBANON TN 37088 HIE TOLLGATE BLVD LLC 3837 TOLLGATE BLVD USA NAPLES FL 34114 CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE INC PO BOX 787 USA LEBANON TN 37088 TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN INC P O BOX 990564 USA NAPLES FL 34116 R & M REAL ESTATE COMPANY INC 4100 GOLDEN GATE PKWY USA NAPLES FL 34116 TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN INC P O BOX 990564 USA NAPLES FL 34116 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Att D - Tollgate NIM Summary (29781 : PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA) 09/20/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Doc ID: 29782 Item Summary: PL20230007875 Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment - 3880 Tollgate Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard, north of Beck Boulevard - A Resolution amending Development Order 84-1, as amended, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact by providing for: Section One, Amendments to Development Order and the Master Development Plan (Map H) to allow development of 110 multi-family rental units with affordable housing on Parcel 11 of the Commercial Areas, "A" Parcels, as shown on the Master Development Plan, as an alternative to commercial uses, comprising +/-5 acres of the Development of Regional Impact; by extending the expiration date and buildout date to August 1, 2030; Section Two, Effect of Previously Issued Development Orders, Transmittal to the Florida Department of Commerce and Effective Date. The subject property is located in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] (Companion to Item GMPA-PL20230007876, Tollgate Housing Subdistrict and PUDA-PL20230007874, Tollgate Commercial Center) Meeting Date: 09/20/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Laura DeJohn 08/29/2024 9:44 AM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 08/29/2024 9:44 AM Approved By: Review: Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/05/2024 4:27 PM Unknown Jaime Cook GMCDD Reviewer Completed 09/06/2024 8:58 AM Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch GMD Approver Completed 09/09/2024 2:47 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/09/2024 4:25 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Skipped 09/09/2024 4:27 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Completed 09/10/2024 10:07 AM Growth Management Community Development Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 09/13/2024 3:53 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 09/20/2024 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 631 DOA-PL20230007875 – Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI Page 1 of 5 Friday, September 13, 2024 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 SUBJECT: DOA-PL20230007875 TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DRI (Companion to PL20230007874 Tollgate Commercial Center PUDA & GMPA-PL20230007876 Tollgate Housing Subdistrict) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agents: K2 Housing Naples LLC 3880 Tollgate Blvd Naples, FL 34114-5444 Jem Frantz, AICP RVI Planning + Landscape Architecture 28100 Bonita Grande Dr. #305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution amending Development Order 84-1, as amended, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) by amending the Development Order and the Master Development Plan (Map H) to allow development of 110 multi-family rental units with affordable housing on Parcel 11 of the Commercial Areas, “A” Parcels, as shown on the Master Development Plan, as an alternative to commercial uses, comprising 5+ acres of the DRI; by extending the expiration date and buildout date to August 1, 2030. A companion PUD Amendment (PUDA-PL20230007874) is requested to make corresponding changes to allow multifamily residential use on Parcel 11, and a companion GMP Amendment (GMPA-PL20230007876) is requested to create a new subdistrict within the Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict called Tollgate Housing Parcel allowing for the multifamily residential use on the ±5-acre site. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial DRI DOA -Staff-Report HFAC (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) DOA-PL20230007875 – Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI Page 2 of 5 Friday, September 13, 2024 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is ±5 acres at 3880 Tollgate Boulevard within the ±100-acre DRI/PUD located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) between Beck Boulevard and I-75, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location maps below.) 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial DRI DOA -Staff-Report HFAC (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) DOA-PL20230007875 – Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI Page 3 of 5 Friday, September 13, 2024 PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks to amend Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Development Order Number 84- 1, as amended most recently by Resolution 2015-193, to: • Update Section 2 of the DRI text to include residential use in Parcel 11 only (110 multi- family residential units); • Revise Section 2 of the DRI text to update references to certain Florida Statutes and terminology; • Extend the buildout date listed in Section 7 of the DRI text from August 1, 2021 to August 1, 2030; • Revise Map H to add a note regarding 110 multi-family residential units limited to Parcel 11; and • Modify the title of the Map from “Exhibit B” to “Map H”. STAFF ANALYSIS: The petitioner seeks to amend sections of Development Order 84-1, as amended, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI to conform the DRI Development Order with the proposed changes to the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD (PL20230007874) and the proposed Tollgate Commercial Center Housing Parcel Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element of the GMP (PL20230007876). On April 9, 2018, the statutory provisions in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, related to developments of regional impact (DRI) were amended to eliminate the state review process regarding changes to existing DRIs. Amendments to development orders for existing DRIs are now considered by the local governments that issued the development orders, without state and regional review, pursuant to their local development review procedures, unless those amendments exceed the development thresholds established in Section 380.0651, Florida Statutes. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial DRI DOA -Staff-Report HFAC (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) DOA-PL20230007875 – Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI Page 4 of 5 Friday, September 13, 2024 The petitioner seeks to convert the existing 104-room Super 8 Motel, which was constructed in 1990, into 110 multifamily dwellings. The proposed 110 units on the 4.33-acre motel property equates to a density of 25.4 units per acre; when calculated on the 5.0-acre site, the density is 22 units per acre. The calculation of density across the entire 100-acre DRI/PUD is 1.1 units per acre. The property would typically be subject to the Density Rating System and maximum density provided in the Growth Management Plan. The petitioner seeks a GMP Amendment to create a subdistrict to allow for proposed multi-family residential use of the existing hotel without utilizing the Density Rating System. The maximum density allowed by the proposed Tollgate Housing Parcel Subdistrict is 22 dwelling units per acre, not to exceed 110 dwelling units. Per Subsection (7)(b) of Section 380.06, F.S., any new conditions in the amendment to the development order issued by the local government may address only those impacts directly created by the proposed change, and must be consistent with [F.S.] s. 163.3180(5), the adopted comprehensive plan, and adopted land development regulations. Staff finds the proposed changes do not create an adverse impact and recommends approval of the DRI Development Order Amendment subject to approval of the companion GMPA (PL20230007876) with an effective date linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA, and approval of the companion PUDA (PL20230007874). NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Per the public notice requirements in LDC Section 10.03.06.I., a neighborhood information meeting (NIM) is not required for amendment to a DRI Development Order. The companion GMPA and PUDA petitions required a NIM, and the summary of the meetings held can be found in the staff reports for companion items PUDA-PL20230007874 and GMPA-PL20230007876. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed the staff report for Petition DOA-PL20230007875 on August 28, 2024. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval of DOA- PL20230007875, subject to approval of the companion GMPA (PL20230007876) with an effective date linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA, and approval of the companion PUDA (PL20230007874). Attachments: A) Draft Ordinance 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial DRI DOA -Staff-Report HFAC (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) DOA-PL20230007875 – Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI Page 5 of 5 Friday, September 13, 2024 B) Application/Backup Materials 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Tollgate Commercial DRI DOA -Staff-Report HFAC (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) [24-CPS-02440/1871807/1]46 words added are underlined; words deleted are struck-thru Toll Gate DRI PL20230007875 8/19/24 1 of 3 DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 2024-_______ RESOLUTION NO. 2024-__________ A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-1, AS AMENDED, FOR THE TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MAP H) TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 110 MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PARCEL 11 OF THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, “A” PARCELS, AS SHOWN ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL USES, COMPRISING 5± ACRES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT; BY EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE AND BUILDOUT DATE TO AUGUST 1, 2030; SECTION TWO, EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BECK BOULEVARD AT 3880 TOLLGATE BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (PL20230007875) WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County approved Development Order No. 84-1, which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as the Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI on January 17, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Application for Development Approval (ADA) was incorporated into and by reference made a part of the Development Order; and WHEREAS, the Development Order has been subsequently amended several times, to wit: (i) Resolution No. 92-100 (Development Order No. 92-1), February 11, 1992; (ii) Resolution No. 92-222, (Development Order No. 94-1) April 7, 1992; (iii) Resolution No. 97-75 (Development Order No. 97-2), February 11, 1997; (iv) Resolution No. 03-428; (Development Order No. 03-03) December 2, 2003; (v) Resolution No. 14-229 (Development Order No. 14-02) October 28, 2014; (vi) Resolution No. 15-193 (Development Order No. 15-01) September 22, 2015; and WHEREAS, the real property, which is the subject of the Development Order, is legally described in Exhibit A to Resolution 92-100 (Development Order No. 92-1); and 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Att A - Resolution 082224 (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) [24-CPS-02440/1871807/1]46 words added are underlined; words deleted are struck-thru Toll Gate DRI PL20230007875 8/19/24 2 of 3 WHEREAS, K2 Housing Naples, LLC has filed a Development Order Amendment (DOA) Application to allow development of multifamily rental units with affordable housing on Tract 11 of the commercial areas, “A” Parcels, as shown on the Master Development Plan, as an alternate to commercial uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission held a public hearing on _________________; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing body of the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, with jurisdiction pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered to consider proposed changes to the Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on ________________, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, having considered (a) the DOA Application, (b) the record made at the aforementioned hearing, (c) the record of the documentary and oral evidence presented to the Collier County Planning Commission, and (d) the report and recommendation of Collier County planning staff, the Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the following Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI Development Order amendments. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER That Sections 2 and 7 of Development Order 84-1, as amended, for the Toll Gate Commercial Center is hereby further amended to read as follows: Section 2. That the Board of County Commissioners, having received the above- referenced documents, and having received all related comments, testimony and evidence submitted by each party and members of the general public, finds there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: ************ D. The applicant proposes development of Toll Gate Commercial Center, 100.24 acres, for commercial, industrial, and residential tourist uses, and 110 multi-family dwelling units, limited to parcel 11 only identified in Map H. ************ H. The development is not in an area designated an aArea of cCritical State cConcern pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06 380.05, Florida Statutes, as amended. ************ Section 7. That this Order shall remain in effect until the expiration date and buildout date of August 1, 2021 2030. Any development activity wherein plans have been submitted to the County for its review and approval prior to the expiration date of this Order may be completed, if approved. This Order may be extended by the 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Att A - Resolution 082224 (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) [24-CPS-02440/1871807/1]46 words added are underlined; words deleted are struck-thru Toll Gate DRI PL20230007875 8/19/24 3 of 3 Board of County Commissioners on the finding of excusable delay in any proposed development activity. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENTS TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Exhibit C contained in the DRI Development Order, Resolution No. 92-100, as amended, the Master Development Plan, is hereby amended and attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”. SECTION THREE: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AS AMENDED, TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND EFFECTIVE DATE A. Except as amended hereby, Development Order 84-1, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, binding in accordance with its terms on all parties thereto. B. A copy of this Development Order will be transmitted to the Florida Department of Commerce. C. This Development Order/Resolution is effective on the date of Board adoption. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ______day of _____________________, 2024. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By:_________________________ By:________________________________ Deputy Clerk Chris Hall, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: _________________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A – Revised Master Development Plan, Map H 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Att A - Resolution 082224 (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) 1BSDFMXJMMQSPWJEFBNBYJNVNPGNVMUJGBNJMZSFTJEFOUJBMEXFMMJOHVOJUTMAP H Note:"A" and "B" Parcels will provide goods and services to motorists and area residents. Additionally, "B" Parcels will accommodate service, assembly, wholesale and related Heavy Business Uses.Parcel 11 will provide a maximum of 110 multi-family residential dwelling units as an alternative to commercial uses.EXHIBIT A 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Att A - Resolution 082224 (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Development Order Amendment Application (DOA) August 19, 2024 PREPARED FOR: K2 Housing Naples, LLC SUBMITTED TO: Collier County, Zoning Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Table of Contents Contents Cover Letter Completed Application Request Narrative Addressing Checklist Location Map Current DRI & Master Plan Exhibits Property Owner List Boundary Survey Affidavit of Authorization Property Aerial TIS Revised Map H School Impact Analysis Pre-Application Meeting Notes Proposed Ordinance (Exhibit D) Expedited Review Form 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment COVER LETTER 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO November 28, 2023 Mr. Ray Bellows Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 RE: Tollgate Commercial Center Development Regional Impact Dear Mr. Bellows: K2 Housing Naples LLC, Inc. (“Applicant”) is requesting to amend the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI to allow for the adaptive reuse of the Super 8 Hotel which will transition the hotel to a multifamily development. The amendment will modify the note on Map H to allow for 110 multifamily residential dwellings on a single parcel within the DRI. The amendment does not require any text change to the DRI. No other changes to approved commercial or industrial uses are included with this request. To assist in Staff’s review of this request, please find the adopted Map H, per DO 84-1, which was most recently amended by Resolution 2015-193, and the proposed revised map attached. The Request Narrative describes all changes to these maps in more detail. Staff will note the minor nature of this request, limited to transitioning the existing hotel on Parcel 11 to multifamily development aimed at providing affordable workforce housing. In 2015 and 2016 statutory provisions in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, related to DRIs we re amended to eliminate the review process for DRI amendments, which are now to be considered by local governments. Based on the changes to the Development of Regional Impact process as outlined in the Florida Statutes, a Notice of Proposed Change will not be necessary to add residential uses to the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change will not increase the overall project intensity of commercial land uses in the DRI; 2. The proposed change will not increase any trips onto Collier Blvd. resulting from the transition from commercial to residential trips, ensuring no impact to the regional transportation network; 3. The proposed change will not have any increase in environmental impacts and no wetlands or environmentally sensitive lands are being affected; and 4. The applicant is not requesting any changes to the existing stormwater management system or other development permits. Based on the above, the requested change complies with 380.06(7), F.S. It is understood the requested amendment is subject to approval by the local government through the public hearing process. The Applicant is requesting the DRI amendment be heard by the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners with the companion Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Amendment (PL20220003892). A pre-application meeting for this project was held on May 16, 2023. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 357- 9580, or jfrantz@rviplanning.com Sincerely, RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture Jem Frantz, AICP Project Director Enclosures cc: Andrew Korge, K2 Housing Naples Matthew Lohry, K2 Housing Naples Dan Kessler, K2 Housing Naples Rich Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester Law Firm 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment COMPLETED APPLICATION 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Development of Regional Impact Application (DRI_DOA) 3/14/24 Page 1 of 6 Planning & Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide Administrative Code PROJECT NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________ DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER, if applicable: _____________________________________________________________ Name and Number: _______________________________________________________________________________ Name of Property Owner: Name of Applicant, if different than owner: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Firm: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Address of Subject Property: Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: Size of Property: ft. x ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres: Total Area of Project: # Units: Density: Non- Residential Sq Ft: Any contiguous property owned by Applicant or Owner, provide Legal Description: _____________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR (check one): Administrative Code Chapters 3 D.1 and 3 D.3 Florida Statute § 380.06 and 380.0651 DRI Application for Development Approval (DRI) DRI Development Order Amendment (DOA) APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Development of Regional Impact Application (DRI_DOA) 3/14/24 Page 2 of 6 Does the amendment comply with the Growth Management Plan? Yes No If no, please explain:__________________________________________________________________________________ Has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? Yes No If yes, please provide the petition name and number:_______________________________________________________ Has any portion of the DRI been SOLD and/or DEVELOPED? a. Are any changes proposed for the area SOLD and/or DEVELOPED? Yes No b. If yes please describe on an attached separate sheet. *Pre-application meeting is required before applying 1.A narrative of the request and how it is consistent the Growth Management Plan. 2.Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application. 3.If application involves a change to more than one zoning district, include a separate legal description for each district. 4.If new DRI Application, provide an “Application for Development” (ADA) completed form. 5.Draft DRI Development Order addressing the proposed change. 6.A narrative statement explaining the requested action and why the request is proposed. 7.Supporting applicable materials, a list of all previous actions on the subject site, beginning with the original DRI/PUD approval and include any subsequent amendments. Include the hearing number, hearing dates, and summary of the approval. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Development of Regional Impact Application (DRI_DOA) 3/14/24 Page 3 of 6 See Chapter 3 D. of the Administrative Code for submittal requirements. This completed checklist is to be submitted with application packet in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) Project Narrative including a detailed description of the proposed changes and why the amendment is necessary List of all previous actions Pre-Application Meeting notes Affidavit of Authorization signed & sealed Completed Addressing Checklist, no older than six months Property Ownership Disclosure Form Copy of 8 ½ in. x 11 in. graphic location map of site Signed and sealed survey, no older than 6 months DRI Development Order Master Plan Legal Description Current aerial photographs ( available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. Draft DRI Development Order to address proposed change School Impact Analysis Application-residential projects only (download the School Impact Analysis Application from website) Completed ADA form with attachments, if original DRI If DOA, copy of current PUD Ordinance Traffic Impact Study or waiver. See notes for fees and methodology. Copy of Notices sent to Florida Department of Commerce and Regional Planning Council. Environmental Data requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 A. Electronic copy of all documents and plans. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall hold at least 1 advertised hearing. If required, the Environmental Advisory Council shall hold at least 1 advertised hearing. 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. Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST PUBLIC HEARING 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Development of Regional Impact Application (DRI_DOA) 3/14/24 Page 4 of 6 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. List all registered Home Owner / Civic Association(s) that could be affected by this petition and located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Civic Associations and Communities page on the Board of County Commissioner’s website. Please use the current mailing addresses for each association as registered by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Attach separate list, if more than five Homeowner/Civic Associations. Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS ASSOCIATIONS Toll Gate Commercial Center Property Owner's Association, Inc. 6017 Pine Ridge Road, #380 Naples, FL 34119 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Development of Regional Impact Application (DRI_DOA) 3/14/24 Page 5 of 6 Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 •Applications submitted 9 months after the date of the last pre-app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre-application meeting shall be required. DRI Review (In addition to cost of rezone): $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre •Amendments deemed to be minor in nature, that require minor strike thru and underline text amendments of no more than 10 different lines of text changes in the DRI will be capped at $13,000. Any amendment which includes a map and text change will be assessed the full fee (no cap). DRI/DO Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre. DRI Extension: $100.00 DRI Comprehensive Plan 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: •Methodology Review: $500.00 (Methodology by Email to Staff) *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. •Minor Study Review: $750.00 •Major Study Review $1,500.00 Fire Planning Review Fee: ($120.00 DOA, $200.00 DRI) Fire Pre-Application Meeting: $150.00 (Applied as credit towards fire review fee upon submittal of application if within 9 months of the pre-app meeting date). Estimated Legal Advertising fee: •CCPC: $1,125.00 •BCC: $500.00 Property Owner Notifications: $1.50 Non-certified; $3.00 Certified return receipt mail (to be paid after receipt of invoice from the Zoning Division). School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: •Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County. All fees are collected at the time of application. Property Notification Letters, if required by the Land Development Code, will be invoiced after the petition is heard by the Board of County Commissioners. FEE REQUIREMENTS 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment REQUEST NARRATIVE 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Page 1 of 1 Tollgate Comm. Center DRI (DOA) Request Narrative This application proposes to amend the Tollgate Commercial Center DRI to add multifamily residential dwelling units to Parcel 11 only. The project is an adaptive reuse of the existing 104-room Super 8 Hotel which will become an affordable workforce housing development with 110 multifamily dwellings. In support of the change, amendments to the DRI text to Map H are proposed and identified in more detail below. In 2015 and 2016 statutory provisions in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, related to DRIs were amended to eliminate the review process for DRI amendments, which are now to be considered by local governments. Pursuant to these changes to Florida Statutes, the request is a local zoning issue and the proposed amendment does not create a reasonable likelihood of additional regional impacts, or any type of regional impact not previously reviewed by the regional planning agency for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change will not increase the overall project intensity of land uses in the DRI; 2. The proposed change will not result in increased impacts to the regional transportation network due to the reduced trip generation of multifamily dwellings vs. hotels; 3. The proposed change will not have any increase in environmental impacts and no wetlands or environmentally sensitive lands are being affected; and 4. The applicant is not requesting any changes to the existing stormwater management or other development permits. The requested change complies with 380.06(7), F.S. which outlines the revised amendment process. It is understood the requested amendment is subject to approval by the local government through the public hearing process and no Notice of Proposed Change is required. The Department of Economic Opportunity in the past has found that these types of changes, because they are minor and do not increase regional impacts or negatively impact regional resources, do not require NOPC review in an attempt to streamline the process. Furthermore, the request is consistent with the changes made to the Florida Statutes, pursuant to Chapter 2018-158 of the Florida Administrative Code, as it relates to 380.06(7), F.S. (Changes). Proposed DRI Changes: 1) DRI Text Changes a. Adding residential uses to Section 2. i. This change is required to facilitate the reuse of the existing hotel as described above and in the companion GMP and PUD amendments. b. Extending the DRI build-out date in Section 7. i. The proposed build-out date is August 1, 2030. Most development sites have been sold and developed. A few sites within the DRI remain undeveloped and 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Request Narrative Tollgate Commercial Center DRI (DOA) Page 2 of 3 the proposed project seeks to redevelop an existing developed site. Therefore, the applicant seeks to extend the life of the Development Order so that development and redevelopment within the DRI may continue to completion. 2) Master Development Plan Changes a. Adding note regarding 110 multi-family residential units limited to Parcel 11. i. This change is required to facilitate the reuse of the existing hotel as described above and in the companion GMP and PUD amendments. b. Updating the current exhibit title to “Map H.” i. This change updates the exhibit title to one commonly used for DRI Master Development Plans. Previous Actions: Previous actions related to the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD/DRI include the following: 1) Ordinance 84-06, January 17, 1984. a. PUD Approval for 69.4 acres. 2) Development Order No. 84-1, January 17, 1984. a. ADA Approval for 69.4-acre DRI. 3) Ordinance 90-54, June 20, 1990. a. PUD Approval for 78.57 acres. 4) Ordinance 90-92, December 11, 1992 a. Added environmental conditions 5) Ordinance 92-10, February 11, 1992. a. PUD Approval for 100± acres. 6) Resolution No. 92-100, (Development Order No. 92-1), February 11, 1992. a. Expanded acreage to 100± acres. b. Amended or added conditions related to Transportation, Drainage/Water Quality/Wetlands, Wastewater Management/Water Supply, Housing, General Conditions, and PUD Document. 7) Resolution No. 92-222, (Development Order No. 92-4), April 7, 1992. a. Amended Transportation and Housing conditions. 8) Ordinance 93-91, December 14, 1993. a. Amending PUD Development Standards. 9) Resolution No. 97-75, (Development Order No. 97-2), February 11, 1997. a. Extended DRI build-out to 12/30/02. 10) Resolution No. 03- 428, (Development Order No. 03-03), December 2, 2003. a. Extended DRI build-out to 12/29/07. 11) Resolution No. 14-229, (Development Order No. 14-02), October 28, 2014. a. Extended DRI build-out to 8/1/2021. 12) Resolution No. 15-193, Development Order No. 15-01), September 22, 2015. a. Amended Exhibit C, the Master Development Plan. 13) Ordinance 15-49, September 22, 2015. a. Amended PUD Master Plan to allow Light Industrial uses on Lots 16-20. 14) Ordinance 17-15, May 9, 2017. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Request Narrative Tollgate Commercial Center DRI (DOA) Page 3 of 3 a. Amended PUD to Add Institutional Uses to Commercial Areas. For the reasons listed above, the Applicant respectfully requests approval of the modified the Schedule of Uses to allow for residential withing the Tollgate DRI/PUD. No other changes are proposed to adopted DRI conditions are proposed via this application. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Addressing Checklist (Rev 10/2022) Page 1 of 1 Operations & Regulatory Management Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items marked with (*) are required for every application, other items are optional and may not apply to every project. Forms are valid for 6 months following their submittal; an updated form will be required for a new submittal after that timeframe and any time the properties within the project boundary are modified. Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include: -* LOCATION MAP and/or SURVEY showing the proposed project boundary. -List of additional folio numbers and associated legal descriptions. - E-mail from Addressing Official for any pre-approved project and/or street names. LOCATION INFORMATION *FOLIO (Property ID) Number(s) of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] *LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] STREET ADDRESS(ES) where applicable, if already assigned. PROJECT INFORMATION Acceptance of this form does not constitute project and/or street name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Official. Pre-Approval may be requested by contacting us at GMD_Addressing@colliercountyfl.gov or 239-252-2482 prior to your submittal. CURRENT PROJECT NAME PROPOSED PROJECT NAME PROPOSED STREET NAME(s) LATEST APPROVED PROJECT NUMBER [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####] 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 4/25/23, 2:25 PM Collier County Property Appraiser https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 $ 7,000,000 $ 0 $ 3,200,000 $ 3,080,000 $ 0 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,179,840 $ 2,815,532 $ 4,995,372 $ 577,295 $ 4,418,077 $ 4,995,372 $ 4,418,077 Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Summar y Parcel No 76885005005 Site Address*Disclaimer 3880 TOLLGATEBLVD Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34114 Name / Address K2 HOUSING NAPLES LLC 3880 TOLLGATE BLVD City NAPLES State FL Zip 34114-5444 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres  *Estimated 4B35 664000PH 1 24B35 35 49 26 4.33 Legal TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE I, PARCEL 2 AND W15FT OF THE W1/2 OF PARCEL 1BOUNDED BY THE PROLONGATION OF NLY AND SLY LINES OF PARCEL 2 Millage Area 31 Millage Rates   *Calculations Sub./Condo 664000 - TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CTR PH 1 School Other Total Use Code 39 - HOTELS, MOTELS 4.459 6.6904 11.1494 Latest Sales Histor y (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 09/12/22 6174-1554 07/16/15 5180-2026 10/02/08 4397-3297 07/03/00 2693-2184 08/02/89 1466-503 08/01/89 1462-338  2022 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (-) 10% Cap (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll   9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 4/25/23, 2:26 PM Collier County Property Appraiser https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 $ 7,000,000 $ 0 $ 75 $ 0 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Summar y Parcel No 76885005102 Site Address*Disclaimer Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34114 Name / Address K2 HOUSING NAPLES LLC 3880 TOLLGATE BLVD City NAPLES State FL Zip 34114-5444 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres  *Estimated 4B35 664000PH 1 1.14B35 35 49 26 0.75 Legal TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE 1 EAST 70FT OF THE W1/2 OF PARCEL 1 BOUNDED BY THEPROLONGATION OF NLY AND SLY LINES OF PARCEL 2 Millage Area 31 Millage Rates   *Calculations Sub./Condo 664000 - TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CTR PH 1 School Other Total Use Code 28 - PARKING LOTS, MOBILE HOME PARKS 4.459 6.6904 11.1494 Latest Sales Histor y (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 09/12/22 6174-1554 07/16/15 5180-2026  2022 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll   9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment LOCATION MAP 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Collier County, FL 22005718 K2 Housing Naples LLC Copyw rite RVI Inform ation furnished regarding this property is from sources deemed reliable. RVi has not made an independent investigation of these sources and no warranty is m ade as to their accuracy or completeness. This plan is conceptual, subject to change, and does not represent any regulatory approval. 10401 Highland Manor Dr. Suite 220 Tampa, FL 33610 Tel: 813.443.8282 www.rviplanning.com TOLLGATE COMMERICAL CENTER D RI/PU D• LOCATION MAP Date: 11/8/2022 COLLIER BLVDINTERSTATE 75 Subject Boundary PUD Boundary 0 660 1,320330 Feet[Document Path: \\flbon\projects\2022\22005718 - Tollgate Super 8 Rezone (K2 Developers, LLC)\04 BASE INFORMATION\02 GIS\MXDs\Tollgate Super 8 Location Map.mxdBECK BLVDDAVIS BLVD PROJECTSITE DRI/PUD BOUNDARY 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment CURRENT DRI & MASTER PLAN EXHIBITS 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 15-01 RESOLUTION NO. 15-1 9 3 A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-1, AS AMENDED, FOR THE TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER BY AMENDING THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONVERT LOTS 16 THROUGH 20, COMPRISING 8.93± ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND SECTION FOUR, EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, TRANSMITTAL TO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND BECK BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (PETITION DOA-PL20150000545) WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County approved Development Order No. 84-1, which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as the Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI on January 17, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Application for Development Approval (ADA) was incorporated into and by reference made a part of the Development Order; and WHEREAS, the Development Order has been subsequently amended several times, to wit: i) Resolution No. 92-100 (Development Order No. 92-1), February 11, 1992; ii) Resolution No. 92-222, (Development Order No. 94-1) April 7, 1992; iii) Resolution No. 97-75 (Development Order No. 97-2), February 11, 1997; iv) Resolution No. 03-428; (Development Order No. 03-03) December 2, 2003; v) Resolution No. 14-229 (Development Order No. 14-02) October 28, 2014; and WHEREAS, the real property, which is the subject of the Development Order, is legally described in Exhibit A to Resolution 92-100 (Development Order No. 92-1); and WHEREAS, Sky Angel Center, LLC has filed a Development Order Amendment (DOA) Application and Notice of Proposed Change to a Previously Approved DRI (NOPC) to convert Lots 16 through 20 from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial by adding the parcels to the "B" parcels as shown on the Master Development Plan. The NOPC is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A"; and 15-CPS-01427/1205410/1] 57 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI/PUD 1 of 4 DOA-PL20150000545— 8/27/15 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission reviewed and considered the report and recommendation of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) and held a public hearing on July 16, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing body of the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, with jurisdiction pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered to consider proposed changes to the Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on September 22, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, having considered (a) the DOA Application and the NOPC, (b) the record made at the aforementioned hearing, (c) the record of the documentary and oral evidence presented to the Collier County Planning Commission, (d) the report and recommendation of Collier County planning staff, and (d) the report and recommendation of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Counsel, the Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the following Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI Development Order amendments. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND MASTER PLAN Exhibit C contained in the DRI Development Order, Resolution No. 92-100, the Master Development Plan, is hereby amended and attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI does not constitute a substantial deviation as set forth in Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, however, it does not create additional regional impacts. B. Pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, the applicant submitted the NOPC to Collier County, the SWFRPC and the Department of Economic Opportunity. C. The DOA Application and the NOPC are in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the report and recommendation of the SWFRPC. E. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant to Section 380.05, Florida Statutes. F. No increase in overall development intensity is authorized by this Resolution. 15-CPS-01427/1205410/11 57 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI/PUD 2 of 4 DOA-PL20150000545— 8/27/15 7CA 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI does not constitute a substantial deviation, as set forth in Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, but it does not create any additional regional impacts, and therefore does not require further Development of Regional Impact review. B. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area. C. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County Land Development Code adopted pursuant thereto. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AS AMENDED; TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE A. Except as amended hereby, Development Order 84-1, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, binding in accordance with its terms on all parties thereto. B. Copies of this Development Order/Resolution shall be transmitted immediately upon execution to the Department of Economic Opportunity (Division of Community Planning and Development) and the SWFRPC. C. This Development Order/Resolution shall take effect as provided by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majo ty vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 1`°day of t'ii 2015. ATTEST" `- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E: BROC QLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA vr B y: By: / 1 '', ate‘we--- Attest as to TIM NANCE, Chairman signature only; ,. T 15-CPS-01427/1205410/1]57 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI/PUD 3 of 4 DOA-PL20150000545— 8/27/15 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Approved as to form and legality: a Hei i Ashton-Cicko cAti Managing Assistant County attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Notice of Proposed Change Exhibit B —Revised Master Development Plan 15-CPS-01427/1205410/1]57 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI/PUD 4 of 4 DOA-PL20150000545— 8/27/15 j_A 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO FORM DEO-BCP-PROPCHANGE-1 Rule 73C-40.010, FAC. Effective 11-20-90 Renumbered 10-01-11) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY DIVISION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT The Caldwell Building, MSC 160 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT(DRI) SUBSECTION 380.06(19), FLORIDA STATUTES Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, requires that submittal of a proposed change to a previously approved DRI be made to the local government, the regional planning agency, and the state land planning agency according to this form. 1.I, Frederick E. Hood, AICP, the undersigned authorized representative of Sky Angel Center, LLC, APPLICANT) hereby give notice of a proposed change to a previously approved Development of Regional Impact in accordance with Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. In support thereof, I submit the following information concerning the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD/ DRI ORIGINAL/CURRENT PROJECT NAME) development, which information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have submitted today, under separate cover, copies of this completed notification to Collier County, (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and to the Bureau of Community Planning, Department of Economic Opportunity. 1\sApril21,2015 Date Signature 1 Exhibit A Page j of,- - 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 2. Applicant (name, address, phone). Sky Angel Center, LLC Rob Johnson, Director of Sky Angel Holdings, LLC, Manager of Sky Angel Center, LLC 1300 Goodlette Road N Naples, FL 34102 clo Mr.Andrew Solis PH:239.390.1900 FX:239.390.1901 Email:rob.johnson @skyangel.com 3. Authorized Agent (name, address, phone). Frederick E. Hood,AICP Davidson Engineering 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239.434.6060 Fax:239.434.6084 Email:fred @davidsonengineering.com 4.Location (City, County,Township/Range/Section) of approved DRI and proposed change. Naples, Collier County,Section/Township/Range: 35/49/26 and 2/50/26 5.Provide a complete description of the proposed change. Include any proposed changes to the plan of development, phasing, additional lands, commencement date, build-out date, development order conditions and requirements, or to the representations contained in either the development order or the Application for Development Approval. Indicate such changes on the project master site plan, supplementing with other detailed maps, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested by the Department or any reviewing agency to clarify the nature of the change or the resulting impacts. It is the Applicant's intent to convert Lots 16-20 within Tollgate Commercial Center Phase 3 from Commercial to Commercial/Light Industrial. This proposed change will generate less traffic, therefore having a less impact on the existing roadways. 6.Complete the attached Substantial Deviation Determination Chart for all land use types approved in the development. If no change is proposed or has occurred, indicate no change. No significant changes to the previously approved development program are being contemplated with this submittal. 2 Exhibit A Page A2_,of! tiJ 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 7.List all the dates and resolution numbers (or other appropriate identification numbers) of all modifications or amendments to the originally approved DRI development order that have been adopted by the local government, and provide a brief description of the previous changes (i.e., any information not already addressed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart). Has there been a change in local government jurisdiction for any portion of the development since the last approval or development order was issued? If so, has the annexing local government adopted a new DRI development order for the project? Please see the attached Composite Exhibit 1. Ordinance 84-06 PUD Approval for 69.4 acres DRI Development Order 84-1 approving ADA for 69.4 acre DRI Ordinance 90-54 PUD Approval for 78.57 acres Ordinance 90-92 Adding Environmental conditions Ordinance 92-10 PUD Approval for 100.23 acres Resolution 92-100 Amending DRI Development Order 84-1 Resolution 92-222 Amending DRI Development Order 84-1 Ordinance 93-91 Amending PUD Conditions Resolution 97-74 Substantial Deviation Amending DRI Development Order 84-1 Resolution 97-75 Amending DRI Development Order 84-1 extending build-out to 12/30/02 Resolution 03-428 Amending DRI Development Order 84-1 extending build-out to 12/29/07 EX-2010-AR-14663 Extending DRI build-out to 1/1/12 (Under Florida State Senate Bill 1752) Development Order 14-02/Resolution 14-229 8.Describe any lands purchased or optioned within 1/4 mile of the original DRI site subsequent to the original approval or issuance of the DRI development order. Identify such land, its size, intended use, and adjacent non-project land uses within Y: mile on a project master site plan or other map. This description is not applicable. The original developer, who would have purchased or optioned property within a%mile, is no longer involved in the DRI. There are two remaining vacant land owners within the DRI. 9.Indicate if the proposed change is less than 40% (cumulatively with other previous changes) of any of the criteria listed in Paragraph 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes. Do you believe this notification of change proposes a change which meets the criteria of Subparagraph 380.06(19)(e)2., F.S. YES X NO 3 Exhibit A Page _of, .. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 10. Does the proposed change result in a change to the build-out date or any phasing date of the project? If so, indicate the proposed new build-out or phasing dates. The proposed change to convert certain Commercial Properties to Commercial/ Light Industrial does not change the build-out date or any phasing of the project. 11. Will the proposed change require an amendment to the local government comprehensive plan? Provide the following for incorporation into such an amended development order, pursuant to Subsections 380.06(15), F.S., and 73-40.025, Florida Administrative Code: A Planned Unit Development Amendment and a DRI- Notice of Proposed change have been submitted concurrently with this application with Collier County Growth Management. 12. An updated master site plan or other map of the development portraying and distinguishing the proposed changes to the previously approved DRI or development order conditions. A copy of the original Master Site Plan has been included for your review, along with a copy of the proposed Master Site Plan. No changes are required to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 13. Pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19)(f), F.S., include the precise language that is being proposed to be deleted or added as an amendment to the development order. This language should address and quantify: There is no language change contemplated to the development order. The proposed change to the master plan does not trigger a change to the development order. a. All proposed specific changes to the nature, phasing, and build-out date of the development; to development order conditions and requirements; to commitments and representations in the Application for Development Approval; to the acreage attributable to each described proposed change of land use, open space, areas for preservation, green belts; to structures or to other improvements including locations, square footage, number of units; and other major characteristics or components of the proposed change; It is the Applicant's intent to convert Lots 16-20 (8.93 acres) within Tollgate Commercial Center Phase 3 from Commercial to Commercial/ Light Industrial. This proposed change will generate less traffic, therefore having a less impact on the existing roadways. 4 Exhibit A Pagel..of OA° 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO b. An updated legal description of the property, if any project acreage is/has been added or deleted to the previously approved plan of development; The current legal description and boundary of the DRI has not changed since the last approved extension request. Please find attached, to this submittal, a copy of the legal description and sketch. c. A proposed amended development order deadline for commencing physical development of the proposed changes, if applicable; N/A d. A proposed amended development order termination date that reasonably reflects the time required to complete the development; N/A e. A proposed amended development order date until which the local government agrees that the changes to the DRI shall not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity reduction, if applicable; and Acknowledged. f.Proposed amended development order specifications for the annual report, including the date of submission, contents, and parties to whom the report is submitted as specified in Subsection 73C-40.025 (7), F.A.C. N/A 5 Exhibit A Page.,.,of/a, OA° 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO cctWa.Z WC7d4 CAU :d c-) oAO. bOw0 . ddWA 0.. a 0 Qz o a r4a ct axO U 0 z b O O1) Q d o aza C.y U N W v) 4 C O W Or o z A O o a a. tza O o cn Q 00 > w E A a C to a E i 4. 0 E.r O b0A 0 0 O Q W„ ai Q s c N V U t).0 -p Q ct to .2 vQ O W O = N v 0 'O o 6 C c . ':4 ti v f to z O c-,C/ 4t c 0 i - • C.C E c o aS rr O v '0 O V a O •C. d 0 CU UO 00 a C ( Cc) c v tU L E tu O d 3 3 E - o o C.3CC; ci v ° D a C7 n ' O 4t ; v) d a) w 6 d cC c4 E-- qt d in d n! 0 cr 0 o E o g L d 2 p co a o o a • v 0 C z s. d d z -o Exhibit A rage ..of. 9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 673Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate ccctn,a)b0Eo00a.0L0 s 0 Q 0 U S c73H W N Q bA M C Ct V 0 z 0 C CA 0 Q a. L z a u W4 o ,AFH w o0A L z C 0 0 QF' v Ft CU W o a c E da4 aG n' 4_, F+ o Z on Z c w cldCl.. a) CA 0L ac a O bq H O by a. y V) E --+ 0 - 0 O U L3 0 bA U 0• U O y a ° a't' p 0 . r) cUC 0 ,, i cd N OLCU0U •, . 0 0 p, L 0 C Va bA O U n OA U O 74 C E 0 0 C tb c C y C C bA O TI v C ^gyp C. L a O ct G E V ' E . EG]. v O c• w O C) CO a.. 0 Q a.. S W 1) 2 L1 d 4t 4t CD v) Q 0 W CI < < 0 4t CY1 4t 0 v) 0 a" au T ci O E 0 co c a . 0 0 1' ci L ti)o CA ci Cl. C Q ci Exhibit A Z ° Page ., of, t+9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 674Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Cs1.a)7)Utzlb0EoUa40a.0 0 w 0 cn U 0 U F'' C a d to x at U z io O h OQ, d o z a U N a a> ct F w o p o z O U 0Co O 0 d t:4)c C s A 70 0 v o d w)c w p• E-+ al 0 z c d U crl alE-0 a ct • U a.CI 0 0, C ( b A ; y C C - cEi dA C o 0cc0 v O L -C U n 0 C r Vi C 0 V Ccal• U U o 0 00 = 'B CA 0 p cn• z cA C -v v E C > ' &, U E a ' 0 ' 0 o p 0 •o z O O 0 OA CA y O OcCCpEctCC- ti) , ...= at C 0 -p rw O O o ( N p e w O Q 5' a U w O co GD d d 3 cn aG LQ d d 8 m O 0 a- a> o Ct C C CO os.. Q, U tea. is H c-t 0 to bA C 0 C C--. 4-,3 0 0 MI z Ex ibit A Page of 14 r'9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 675Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate ccr,,a)cnoa,0Fa30v)00C), V 0 a 0 Q F as C4 a, x c V 0 z tu0tu d 8z a 0 ) a 0 C W o0A L Q 0 0 o > a 3 0 0 O W a x c cu a o w ogi on c z C r. r. a) 3 b vi vi v) rw C U 0 a) .C ° C v C / 0O a F. c ate' ; ,o b a, > CA C ,o a U ° o d s g, c 3 -0 C 5 •—• a, c sy L a) 0 0 >> N C ° cn `n a) a) V V a) L c -O a) U C o CA O W Ca W m 2 ; 0 w . Ca i. a) d cn Ca cn rs. cG 4t Ca d It Ca a cn a a) 4t (Z d 0 cr 0 C o F v) c U a) 2 a Ccoo C C R. N U a N ,4 C as ch U o CC)C w b o C O acip a° Exhibit A z ° Page of 1.o9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 676Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate aalsa.vOEa,v,0a0a a) 0 v)a) F. 0 U a) d to Z a act 0 z C VI0 O a Q z Q- MI / x a, w w , F, o W A o a, t.z Q U O r n a) 4 O A 3 3 Q c t) o z a) p t4) b 6 c' a L° pa bA cd (1) bA v) M O Cl.) C O CCvc - O bit) , cd c 0jNUNaVN y a- N a >O c a; a C a o a; a a a O a o I) a -a a a o W ate) o a w °? W O p 0 0 L o fl cd O C a) va =C I) 2 6 p co Q, a) c; a) E a) d a v a)p 5 C s 6 .3 a 3 0 C 7 -a Exhibit A Page/ .11 .tom, 9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 677Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate cgVa)0Ea)cn0a.0I.a, a) w 0 a.3 a 0 0 t:4 a) d to x cg V 00 z v O 00c p d o z a 0 a) x a) ct 4) 4-4 v, F, o W oAz., z a' 6- O U 0 1.a I)F" o > 0 b .to cu A oOO E d a c4 o w H w bpA CIA a) O ct cz E C a a. a sC. a; E• CA cr a -° b a c °C4 by 0 Cal) v p cn 0 cn C C c CpN0Uala) 0 V CA CICAcn_ GQ U U .L' p C B U .9 0 C v' C N C U C V N a bA G) 0 0 y o C 0 C V) 0 > c C ct bi) >, ' • 4 cC 'C Ln. bA v) >, '+ c '0 C C) C. . 1 C. O bA a) " U to a) • C bCA 0 C 0 x 3. R3 crsC.. O 0 UEE . •-a cG o a. W ate)aN' W D a. C W W O Q a) r v) d D d d co v Ca d E zr a,L O ct E CA C.) E C C O m C. a) cd N ci C a) C O' j 3 Exhibit A a Pane 7 L of c9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 678Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate aasa.a)a,0Ea,Oa0La cu 0 r ai a. 0 0 C4 bA U 0 z b 0 v) F c. 2 z a x a, ct W o „, W o0 z C 0z a, W A o o d 4.4-4 F o o Z oF0C. bA bA U Qa a) O Z O 4 a v Q Q O Z a) c; O a 'O O QOCLEca O bOA 0 4. O bOA c0 CIO 0 al 0 CD 0 C v a>i O p V V Q to H M Q d V) c C] Q E a- L I, >,C cti 7cs Cc's' a o o L Q C3 c o c o 0 EQtpa - o o W 0 C. a) v o o .o L al al -4-4 L>..>— i• Cri L r'n G > 0 a) 'V a) a a) as . O c9 . ciO. Z -a Exhibit A heap l2 of ) t_9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 679Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate MAF'Ii MASTER 6; DEVELOPMENT PLAN r TOLLGATE Z COMMERCIAL CENTER A January, 1991 oo 8 p W rW 1 Zti• .. 7.WaJ 1 ill1 g .,. ir1 jam ty o?oao t tir}alt; rn t. WaV ti• 0: p at NA w F t,+ 14:I;M.: AI IX DRIVE 1fix: v~, t, C F yn W 4rI W : 1.' 0 •4115:: _ 11111 a. gr t, F Ma w.w •4 4HIII Li cz 0.y , ct C 1 1ii ti. BUSH BOULEVARD-Q C 1:ti j IL F1'&I.F.AS F'.V,FVT t t g_ W go A fil re W.§ a W TOLLGATE BLVD. W N r t ( t W F e a h3 t Q tom Z L1 4 ' 4 MIN C.R. 951 VIEW .. C r.1 EXHIBIT B 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment PROPERTY OWNER LIST 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Page 1 of 1 Tollgate Commercial Center CPUD Property Owners Exhibit I. PROPERTY OWNERS LIST II. WARRANTY DEED See Following Pages STRAP Number Property Owner Acreage Address Section – Township - Range 1 76885005005 K2 Housing Naples LLC 4.33 3880 Tollgate Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 35-49-26 2 76885005102 K2 Housing Naples LLC 0.75 3880 Tollgate Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 35-49-26 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment BOUNDARY SURVEY 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO CO E DYHDYH WV WV WV WV FO FOSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSDYH S E FO WV CO SS SS SD SD 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) UGECO DYHDYH WV WV WV FO FO SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DYHS E FO WV CO SS SS SD SD 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment PROPERTY AERIAL 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Collier County, FL 22005718 K2 Housing Naples LLC Copyw rite RVI Inform ation furnished regarding this property is from sources deemed reliable. RVi has not made an independent investigation of these sources and no warranty is m ade as to their accuracy or completeness. This plan is conceptual, subject to change, and does not represent any regulatory approval. 10401 Highland Manor Dr. Suite 220 Tampa, FL 33610 Tel: 813.443.8282 www.rviplanning.com TOLLGATE COMMERICAL CENTER D RI/PU D • AERIAL MAP Date: 11/2/2022 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGR ID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityCOLLIER BLVDINTERSTATE 75 Subject Boundary PUD Boundary 0 220 440110 Feet[Document Path: \\flbon\projects\2022\22005718 - Tollgate Super 8 Rezone (K2 Developers, LLC)\04 BASE INFORMATION\02 GIS\MXDs\Tollgate Super 8 Aerial Map.mxdBECK B LVD TOLLGATE BLVD9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment TIS 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Amendment) Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment REVISED MAP H 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 1BSDFMXJMMQSPWJEFBNBYJNVNPGNVMUJGBNJMZSFTJEFOUJBMEXFMMJOHVOJUTMAP H Note:"A" and "B" Parcels will provide goods and services to motorists and area residents. Additionally, "B" Parcels will accommodate service, assembly, wholesale and related Heavy Business Uses.Parcel 11 will provide a maximum of 110 multi-family residential dwelling units as an alternative to commercial uses.9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 705Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [√] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I.Project Information: Project Name: ___________________________________________ Municipality: _________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II.Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Email_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III.Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Worksheet is required to be completed by the Applicant only if the project is to be phased: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF MF MH C G Totals by Yr Grand Total Grand Total Insert totals by unit type by years. Unit Types: SF = Single Family MF = Multi-Family/Apartments MH = Mobile Homes C = Condo/Co-Op G = Government EXAMPLE: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF 25 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MF 50 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MH N/A C N/A G N/A Totals by Yr 75 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Grand Total 150 . 2 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Types of Reviews: School Impact Analysis: This review should be divided into two categories: - School Capacity Review (land use and rezonings), and; - Concurrency Determinations (site plans and subdivisions). School Capacity Review is the review of a project in the land use and rezoning stage of development. It is a review of the impact of the development on school capacity and is considered long range planning. This may be a review resulting in mitigation being required. In situations where the applicant may be required to mitigate, capacity may be reserved dependent on the type of mitigation. Concurrency Determination is the review of residential site plans and subdivisions to determine whether there is available capacity. When capacity is determined to be available a School Capacity Determination Letter (SCADL) will be issued verifying available capacity to the applicant and the local government. If a project exceeds the adopted level of service standards, the applicant is afforded the option of a negotiation period that may or may not result in an executed/recorded mitigation agreement Mitigation at this stage is expressed as a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. For those residential developments that may have an impact but are otherwise exempt from concurrency, an exemption letter will be prepared for the applicant upon request. For those residential developments that are determined to not have an impact, a letter of no impact will be prepared for the applicant upon request. Exemption Letter: An applicant may request an Exemption Letter as documentation for the local government. These are projects that would be exempt from school concurrency review or projects that do not impact the public schools. Exemptions from school concurrency are limited to existing single family or mobile home lots of record; amendments to previously approved site plans or plats that do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type; age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18; or residential site plans or plats or amendments to site plans or plats that generate less than one student; or are authorized as a Development of Regional Impact (Chapter 380, F.S.) as of July 1, 2005. Concurrency Determination Amendment: An applicant may request an amendment to a previously issued School Concurrency Determination or to an application being processed. This review may require additional staff time beyond the initial concurrency determination review and results in a modified determination being issued. An amendment could result in a negotiation period and/or a mitigation agreement being issued or a previously approved determination being modified and reissued. 3 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 713 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 714 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 721 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 722 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment PROPOSED ORDINANCE - EXHIBIT D 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 1 of 31 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PREPARED BY: RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUTIE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 (239) 435-3535 And ROBERT L. DUANE ROBERT L. DUANE & ASSOCIATES, A.I.C.P 4880 TAMARIND RIDGE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34119 (239) 353-4167 JEM FRANTZ, A.I.C.P. RVI PLANNING + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 405-7777 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC: _________ DATE APPROVED BY BCC: _________ ORDINANCE NUMBER: _________ AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL: _________ 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 2 of 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLE 3 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 4 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 5 - 9 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 10 - 12 SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN FOR PARCEL "A" 13 – 18 13 - 17 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS 19 - 23 FOR PARCEL "B" 18 - 22 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 24 – 28 23 – 27 SECTION VI DEVIATIONS 29 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 3 of 31 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT “A” PUD Master Plan TABLE I Schedule of Development 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 4 of 31 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 100.23 acres of property in Collier County and within an Interchange Activity Center, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as Tollgate Commercial Center, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan and its provisions for Interchange Activity Center development. This compliance includes: Activity Center Project 1. The subject property is located in an area identified as an Interchange Activity Center in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth management Plan for Collier County. 2. Interstate Activity Centers are the preferred locations for the concentration of commercial and mixed use development activities. 3. The subject tract is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of CR-951 and CR- 84. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of commercial/industrial activities. 4. The project is in compliance with all applicable County regulations. In addition, the project complies with the Growth Management Plan with the adoption of the Plan amendment which allows for specifically approved heavy business/light industrial uses, residential uses, and mixed-use developments to be developed in designated interstate activity centers. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by the County. 6. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers and the proposed development standards contained herein. 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open spaces and naturalized open features which serve as project amenities. 8. The project shall be developed in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan and the existing PUD document as approved. In addition, the project shall be developed in accordance with all Collier County regulations in effect at the time of Final SDP or building permit application. 9. Bind the owner's successor in title to any commitments made under in this document. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 5 of 31 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of Tollgate Commercial Center. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Commencing at the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida; thence along the east line of said Section 35 North 1 ° - 56' -55" West 200.14 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); thence along said north right-of-way line, North 89° -45' -01" West 331.23 feet to a point of intersection of said north right-of-way line of State Road 93 (I-75), and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley) on the following five courses: 1) North 89° -45' -0 I" West 2398.66 feet; 2) South 89° -56' -16" West 1547.43 feet; 3) North 80° -43' -58" West 709.38 feet; 4) North 39° -52' -42" West 209.91 feet; 5) North 10° -24' -33" West 209.94 Feet to a point on the East Limited Access, right- of way line of State Road 93 (1-75); thence continue along said Limited Access, right-of-way line of State 93 (I-75) on the following nine courses: 1) North 3° -19' -52" East 285.34 feet; 2) North 23° -37' -28" East 149.83 feet; 3) North 64° -12' -39" East 149.83 feet; 4) North 86° -37' -0 l" East 778.54 feet; 5) South 87° -55' -12" East 318.82 feet; 6) South 78° -44' -38" East 318.32 feet; 7) South 74° -09' -17" East 1199.30 feet; 8) South 73° -00' -33" East 1904.96 feet; 9) southeasterly 233.67 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 116.2116 feet, subtended by a chord which bears South 75° -35' -07'' East 223.67 feet to the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; being a part of south ½, Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; subject to easements and restrictions of records; containing 69.40 acres of land more or less; bearings are based on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map for State Road 93 (1-75). 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 6 of 31 ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: Description of part of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and part of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida COMMENCE at an iron pipe marking the Northeast Corner of said Section 2; thence North 89° 45' 01" West, 337.83 feet along the North line of said Section 2 for a POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 00° 02' 19" East, 59.98 feet; thence South 89° 57' 41" West, 2,300.70 feet; thence on a course traversing from said Section 35, South 89° 56' 02" West, 2,448.74 feet; thence North 45° 46' 16" West, 71.58 feet; thence North 01° 28' 34" West, 705.25 feet to the Easterly Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 951 (Section 03175-2409); thence South I 0° 24' 33" East, 209.94 feet; thence South 39° 52' 42" East, 209.91 feet; thence South 80° 43" 58" East, 709.38 feet; thence North 89° 56' 16" East, 1,547.43 feet; thence South 89° 45' 0I" East, 2,396.67 feet to the Southerly Existing Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 93 (03175-2409); thence South 00° 02' 19" East, 200.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Less and except the East 100.00 feet thereof. Containing 30.835 acres, more or less. All of Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase One, as recorded in Plat Book 16 Page 1, public records of Collier County, Florida; and All of Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase Two, as recorded in Plat Book 18 Pages 23-24, public records of Collier County, Florida; and All of Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase Three, as recorded in Plat Book 22 Pages 95- 100, public records of Collier County, Florida. The entire project area is 100.235 acres. Number of acres devoted to various categories of land use: Development area 70.72 Water management area 17.84 Road Right-of-Way 6.7 F.P.L Easement 4.98 GENERAL LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE Tollgate Commercial Center is located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 1-75/CR- 951 interchange, approximately five miles east of the Naples Airport at the eastern terminus of Davis Boulevard (SR 84). 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 7 of 31 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The ownership of this property on April 25th, 2017 is Toll Gate Naples LLC, and Sky Angel Center LLC. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 8 of 31 1.43 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is designated Interstate Interchange Activity Center on the Collier County Growth Management Plan. B. CURRENT ZONING: The project site is currently zoned PUD. C. EXISTING LAND USE: At the present time the site is unoccupied except for a 104 room motel. D. ADJACENT LAND USE: The adjacent lands are predominately vacant at the present time. The northwest and southwest corners of CR 951 and SR 84 are presently used as gasoline service stations. The properties north of the I-75 right-of-way and the properties south of CR 84 are vacant. 1.54 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The elevation of the project site varies from 9.8 feet to 11.6 feet. Tollgate Commercial Center lies within Zone X as identified on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. Zone X is identified as those areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood. This means that no development will be occurring within the 100-year flood prone area. A. SOILS: There are three types of soil cover on the project site. They are Arzell fine sands, Keri fine sands and Pompano fine sands. The distribution of these soil types is shown in Map E. B. VEGETATIVE COVER: A breakdown of the vegetative cover of the project area is as follows: VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGE Pineland 1.00 Saw Palmetto/Rusty Lyonia 4.21 Transitional Zone/Cypress 29.40 Functional Wetland 9.40 Cabbage Palm Heads .30 Improved/Platted 30.67 Cleared/Filled Unplatted Former R/W 21.66 F.P.L. R/W 3.60 TOTAL 100.24 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 9 of 31 There are no unique features of the vegetation. All species and associations are "typical" for soil types common to pine flatwoods of level sandy areas of Collier County. C. WILDLIFE: Wildlife, observed or noted from tracks, nests, etc. consisted of the representative species, such as raccoon, snakes and wading birds, which normally occur in a habitat such as the Tollgate Commercial Center site. No endangered or threatened species were observed on the site. D. HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: John Beriault, Field Representative of the S.W. Florida Archaeological Society, searched for such sites and believes none exist on the tract. E. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT: Waste water treatment is being provided by the Collier County Sewage Treatment System. Temporary on-site wastewater treatment facilities for which all necessary permits have been granted may be installed during any period of time in which sewage treatment service is not available from Collier County. F. WATER MANAGEMENT: The Water Management Plan provides for site runoff transport to a system of hardwood forest, marsh, and open water ponds. The Water Management Plan is designed to meet SFWMD and County criteria. Minimum road elevations and discharge control will be designed for the 25-year, 3-day rainfall event. The finished floor elevations will be established by the 100 year-zero discharge design event. G. WATER SUPPLY: Potable water is being supplied by the Collier County Water- Sewer District. Non-potable water utilized for landscape irrigation and other non-human consumptive uses will be procured from on-site wells, or from the County treated sewage effluent distribution system. H. SOLID WASTE: Solid waste is being disposed of at the Collier County Sanitary Landfill. Collection is provided by Waste Management of Collier County, a franchised hauler. I. ELECTRICITY: Electricity is being provided by the Florida Power & Light Company, Inc. J. POLICE PROTECTION: Police protection is provided by the Collier County Sheriff Department. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 10 of 31 K. FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection is provided by the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. L. TELEPHONE: Telephone service is provided by United Telephone of Florida. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 11 of 31 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally described the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations, requirements and references for development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall be in accordance with the contents of this document. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless specifically waived through variance or waiver provisions within the PUD, those applicable regulations not otherwise provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect. E. Each tract, as identified on the Master Plan, shall require the submittal, review and subsequent approval of a Site Development Plan prior to the issuance of a Final Local Development Order. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Master Plan is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT Project development is underway and will continue to build-out. The following schedule indicates the anticipated start and completion dates for the various project development Phases. Phase boundaries are indicated on the Master Development Plan. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 12 of 31 TABLE I % OF PHASE ACREAGE SITE START COMPLETE I 54.51 54.4 1988 1993 II 26.44 26.4 1992 1995 III 19.29 19.2 1993 1996 TOTALS 100.24 100.0 A. Table I is a schedule of Development, with the approximate acreage of the total project indicated. The arrangement of these land areas are shown on the PUD Master Development Plan (Exhibit “A”). The Master Development Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. Design criteria and layout is illustrative on the Master Development Plan and other exhibits supporting this project. It shall be understood that these exhibits are to remain flexible so the final design may satisfy development objectives and be consistent with the project development, as set forth in this document. Minor changes to the master plan shall be subject to the provisions of Section 10.02.13.E. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual requirements for drive patterns, parking layout and requirements, and development parcel size and configuration. B. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit “A”, such utility and other easements as are necessary shall be established within or along the various tracts. 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, for all or part of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, and the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Exhibit “A”, PUD Master Development Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, if applicable, shall be submitted for any area to be subdivided. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 13 of 31 C. The development of any tract or parcel contemplating fee simple ownership of land shall be required to submit and receive approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in conformance with Section 10.02.04. - Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats of the Collier County Land Development Code, prior to the submittal of construction plans and plat for any portion of the tract or parcel. D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. E. The developer or subsequent owner of any platted parcel or platted tract shall, prior to application for a building permit, submit a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the tract or parcel to the Development Services Department for approval for applicable development subject to the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section 10.02.13.E. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.6 LIMITATIONS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL As provided for within Section 10.02.13.D. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.7 POLLING PLACES As provided for in Section 2.01.04- Polling Places of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.8 PUD MONITORING An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 10.02.13.F. - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 14 of 31 SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas so designated on Exhibit “A”, as “A” Parcels. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL “A” It is the intent of this document that “A” designated development parcels be used for commercial purposes which serve the motoring public using Interstate I-75 as well as providing limited commercial goods and services of an area-wide nature for the Naples, Marco Island, Golden Gate and the Immokalee urban areas. Further it is the intent of this document that “A” designated development parcels shall be used in accordance with all current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 3.3 COMMERCIAL USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: (a) Automobile service stations including engine tune-ups and minor repairs, and car wash facilities which are accessory uses. (b) Banks and financial institutions, business and professional offices. (c) Cocktail lounges and commercial entertainment. (d) Convention and exhibition halls. (e) Department stores; drug stores; dry cleaning shops and dry goods stores. (f) Electronic games and furniture sales. (g) Ice cream shops and dairy drive-in stores. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 15 of 31 (h) Motels; hotels and other transient lodging facilities. (i) Research and design labs; restaurants and fast food restaurants. (j) Shopping centers. (k) Souvenir stores and stationery stores. (I) Supermarkets (m) Variety stores; vehicle rental-automobile and U-haul type of vehicles and equipment including outside display; veterinary offices and clinics; no outside kenneling. (n) Any other commercial or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. (b) Caretakers residence. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures (a) Car wash facilities which are principal uses. (b) Permitted uses with less than one thousand (1,000) square feet gross floor area in the principal structure. 3.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in Section 3.3., the following principal uses are permitted on the property described on Tracts 7, 8, 9, on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A. -Amusements and Recreational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999): limited to: - Gymnastics, Instruction, Judo Instruction, Karate Instruction, Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction, and Day Camps. -Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) -Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 16 of 31 -Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) -Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) -Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 8331) -Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) -Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 8621) -Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) -Social Services (SIC Code 8322): Excluding: Alcoholism Counseling, Non-Residential Except Medical Treatment, Offender Rehabilitation Agencies, Parole Offices, Probation Offices, and Offender self-help agencies. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 3.3.2. Residential Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted. 1. In addition to the uses set forth in Section 3.3., 110 multi-family rental dwellings are permitted on the property described on Parcel 11 on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A, as an alternative to Commercial Uses in Section 3.3, subject to the following restrictions: a) Twenty-five (25) units (collectively referred to as “Set Aside Units”) shall be restricted as follows: 1) Twelve (12) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. 2) Thirteen (13) units shall be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. b) There will be no income restrictions on the remaining units on Tract 11. However, the remaining units will be rent restricted at a rent equal to or less than rents permitted for households whose incomes are up to and including 120% of the AMI for Collier County. These rent restrictions will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit following conversion of the hotel unit to a multi-family unit. Rent limits may be adjusted annually based on the rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 17 of 31 c) The Set Aside Units shall be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first Set Aside Unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. d) By way of example, the 2024 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits for Collier County are: 2024 Collier County Median Household Income $104,300 Income Limit by Number of People in Unit Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms in Unit Percentage Category 1 2 0 1 2 30% Extremely Low $21,930 $25,050 $548 $587 $704 50% Very Low $36,550 $41,750 $913 $978 $1,173 60% n/a $43,860 $50,100 $1,096 $1,174 $1,408 80% Low $58,480 $66,800 $1,462 $1,566 $1,878 120% Moderate $87,720 $100,200 $2,193 $2,349 $2,817 140% Gap $102,340 $116,900 $2,558 $2,740 $3,286 Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. e) Each Set Aside Unit shall initially be held vacant and advertised for employees of Moorings, Incorporated, and affiliates, or other health care providers, teachers, first responders, hospitality workers and government employees for a minimum of 90 days prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that unit. If any units remain available for rent following the expiration of this 90-day period, then the unit may also be offered to the general public at the rent restricted rate. 1) Each Set Aside Unit will be held vacant and advertised for a minimum of 90 days from the date the unit is first built and for forty-five (45) days after said unit becomes available again for rental, unless it is rented to an income qualifying resident. In the event that no individual identified in subsection A.1.a) above rents the available Set Aside Unit, then the unit may also be offered to the general public, but shall remain a Set Aside Unit and be rent and income restricted accordingly. 2) At a minimum, advertising will consist of providing written notice to the Collier County Community and Human Services Division and the human resource departments for local hospitals, the Collier County Public School District, Collier County Government, other municipalities within Collier County, all EMS and fire districts, and the Collier County Sheriff's Office. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 18 of 31 f) There shall be onsite management at the PUD property at all times. g) No more than two individuals shall be allowed to reside/occupy in a unit at any given time. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with residential units. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard-Twenty-five (25) feet plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. (b) Side Yard - None or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for motels, hotels, multi-family units, and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. (c) Rear Yard -Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront - Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal water line of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on the ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted areas for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. a. Minimum Floor Area for Residential Units: 250 square feet. Pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 13 of Ordinance No. 2023-65 as amended and as codified in Chapter 22, Article IV of the Code of Laws and 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 19 of 31 Ordinances, the minimum unit size for a multi-family dwelling unit is 250 square feet for two occupants. New multi-family units, including redevelopment, shall comply with the minimum size requirements in county ordinances. No more than two individuals shall be allowed to reside/occupy in a unit at any given time. (6) Maximum Density: a. Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotels, motels or transient lodging facilities. b. Residential density: a maximum of 110 multi-family residential rental units may be located on Parcel 11 only (22 dwelling units per acre) as shown on the Master Plan Exhibit A. (7) Distance between Principal Structures on same Site: one-half the sum of the heights. (8) Signs: As required by Section 5.06.00 - SIGN REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSSIFICATION of the Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Section 4.05.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: a. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR-84 and CR-951: CR- 84, 5 feet and CR-951, 10 feet Type D Buffer with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.4. b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with Type A Buffer pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.1. c. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). d. All landscaping requirements of Section 4.06.00 - Landscaping, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 20 of 31 e. Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in SDP applications for each individual development site. f. Landscape buffers for Parcel 11 as shown on the Master Plan, Exhibit A: 5- foot Type A buffers on the north, south and west side of Parcel 11 and a 15- foot Type B buffer on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside of the FPL easement in the median area on the east side of the building in Parcel 11 (See Deviation #1). If the existing building on Parcel 11 is redeveloped all landscaping requirements of LDC section 4.06.00 in effect at the time of redevelopment shall be applicable. (11) Outside Merchandise Storage and displaying: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or by an approved Site Development Plan, outside storage or display of merchandise is prohibited. (12) Uses set forth in Section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, shall meet the standards of the “Activity Center #9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.” Existing buildings and structures, as shown on an SDP approved before the date of adoption of this Ordinance, may remain as non -conforming until redevelopment. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 21 of 31 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial/Industrial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas designated on Exhibit "A" as "B" Parcels. 4.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL “B” It is the intent of this document that “B” designated development parcels be used for both “A” designated uses and for the sale, service, transportation, storage and distribution of goods and service to the traveling public on 1-75 and to the citizens of the area which can be served via the access road systems. A major function of these parcels is to serve as a focal point for the arrival of goods from other points of the region and country and then be processed for distribution to the local trade market. It is intended that inside storage and warehousing along with limited assembly and manufacturing wholly within a building and not obnoxious by reason of emission of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, noise or vibration be permitted. Further, it is the intent of this document that “B” designated Parcels be used in accordance with all of the current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document or as may be approved otherwise by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. 4.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part of other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (a) Any principal use or structure permitted on “A” designated development parcels. (b) Assembly operations in an enclosed building. (c) Building supplies and contractors storage facilities; bulk storage yards not including junk or salvage yards. (d) Car wash, communications service and equipment repair. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 22 of 31 (e) Freight movers and storage. (f) Laboratories, research, design and testing; laundries; lawn maintenance shops and plant nurseries; light manufacturing or processing (include food processing but not abattoir; packaging or fabricating in a completely enclosed building). (g) Miscellaneous uses such as express office; telephone exchange; motor or bus or truck or other transportation terminal and related uses; motorcycle sales, service and repair; museums and tourist attractions. (h) New and used car sales, service and repair including outside display. (i) Offices, general purpose. (j) Warehousing, wholesaling, storage and distributing establishments and similar uses. (k) Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: (1) Any accessory use or structure customarily associated with the permitted uses and structures. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures: (1) Attached residence in conjunction with a business - one (1) per business. (2) Permitted use with less than 1,000 square feet gross floor areas in the principal building. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 23 of 31 4.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in Section 4.3., the following principal uses are permitted on Tracts 16-20, and 24-25 on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A. -Amusements and Recreational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999): limited to: - Gymnastics, Instruction, Judo Instruction, Karate Instruction, Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction, and Day Camps. -Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) -Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) -Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) -Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) -Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 8331) -Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) -Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 8621) -Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) -Social Services (SIC Code 8322): Excluding: Alcoholism Counseling, Non-Residential Except Medical Treatment, Offender Rehabilitation Agencies, Parole Offices, Probation Offices, and Offender self-help agencies. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard -Twenty-five (25) feet. (b) Side Yard - None, or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for hotels, motels and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. Attached residences shall be treated as non-residential. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 24 of 31 (c) Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront- Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal level of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted uses for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. (6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotel, motel and transient lodging facilities. (7) Distance between Structures: One-half the sum of the heights. (8) Signs: As required by Section 5.06.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements: As required by Section 4.05.00 Off-Street Parking and Loading of the Collier County Land Development Code. (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: a. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR-84 and CR-951: CR- 84, 5 feet and CR-951, 10 feet Type D Buffer with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.4 b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with Type A Buffer pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 4.06.02.C.1. c. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). d. All landscape requirements of Section 4.06.00 Landscape, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 25 of 31 e. Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in S DP applications for each individual development site. (11) Merchandise Storage and Display: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or an approved Site Development Plan, or of a nature which is permitted generally, outside storage or display or merchandise is prohibited. (12) Uses set forth in Section 4.3.1, shall meet the standards of the “Activity Center #9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.” Existing buildings and structures, as shown on an SDP approved before the date of adoption of this Ordinance, may remain as non-conforming until redevelopment. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 26 of 31 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for the development of the project. 5.2 PUD MASTER PLAN A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. B. The design criteria and layout illustrated in the Master Development Plan shall be interpreted as preliminary and understood to be flexible so that the final design may best satisfy the project and comply with all applicable requirements. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to Staff approval. C. All necessary easements, dedication, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. D. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structure, locations of all improved facilities and location and treatment of buffer areas. 5.3 ENGINEERING A. The developer and all subsequent petitioners are hereby placed on notice that they shall be required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This includes, but is not limited to, Preliminary Subdivision Plats, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result in the issuance of a final or final local development order. B. The project shall be platted in accordance with the Section 10.02.04 - Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats to define the right-of-way, tracts, and water management areas as shown on the master plan. C. Landscaping shall not be placed within the water management areas unless specifically approved by project Review Services. D. Provide a landscape buffer along the entire southern property line in accordance with Section with Section 3.4 (10) and 4.4 (10) of this PUD. E. Should the South Florida Water Management District, during its permit review process, require a natural vegetative buffer be created between the lots and any jurisdictional wetland Preserve and/or Conservation tract, the buffer shall not be located within the boundaries of the lot(s) unless otherwise waived by the South 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 27 of 31 Florida Water Management District. It shall be created as a separate platted tract or as a buffer Easement over an expanded limit of the Preserve tracts, which would be dedicated as Preserve/Drainage tracts, to include the buffer within the Preserve tract. If the buffer is located within a separate tract, that tract shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and if necessary, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All Preserve buffer easements or buffer tracts shall be created in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 704.06, Florida Statutes. F. Land Development Code, Section 6.06.01 - Street System Requirements Dead end streets maximum length not to exceed 1,000 feet: Waived to a maximum length of 1,050 feet. G. Land Development Regulations, Section 6.06.01 - Street System Requirements- All local streets within commercial subdivision shall be designed according to the typical section for collector streets contained in the County Standards. Waived subject to right-of-way and other dimension requirements for the roads to meet local street standards and the pavements structure to meet collector standards. H. Land Development Code, Section 6.01.02 - Easements: Utility easements will be provided as needed with Collier County utility easements (C.U.E.) at a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. I. Land Development Code, Section 6.06.02 - Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathways Requirements. Not waived since existing phase already has sidewalks and it will maintain the continuity for pedestrian's access purposes. 5.4 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 134 Utilities, Section 134-47, Policies and Standards, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. C. The on-site water distribution system to serve the project must be connected to the existing water main on Tollhouse Drive and/or CR-84 rights-of-way consistent with the main sizing requirements specified in the County's Water Master Plan and extended throughout the project. During design of these facilities, dead end mains shall be eliminated by looping the internal pipeline network. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 28 of 31 D. The utility construction documents for the project's sewerage system shall be prepared so that all sewage flowing to the County's master pump station is transmitted by one (1) main on-site pump station. Due to the design and configuration of the master pump station, flow by gravity into the station will not be possible. The Developer's Engineer shall meet with the County Staff prior to commencing preparation of construction drawings, so that all aspects of the sewerage system design can be coordinated with the County's sewer master plan. E. The existing off-site water facilities of the District must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project and reinforced as required, if necessary, consistent with the County's Water Master Plan to insure that the District's water system can hydraulically provide a sufficient quantity of water to meet the anticipated demands of the project and the District's existing committed capacity. F. The existing off-site sewage transmission facilities of the district must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project improved as required outside the project boundary to provide adequate capacity to transport the additional wastewater generated without adverse impact to the existing transmission facilities. 5.5 WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING A. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 03-37, as amended. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lakes(s) in accordance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Excavation. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DEP and USACE permits. D. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum ½ inch of dry pre- treatment on site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. 5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL A. All jurisdictional wetlands and mitigation areas on-site shall be designated as conservation/preserve tracts or easements on all construction pians and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants similar to or as per Chapter 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 29 of 31 B. In the case of mitigation off-site any purchase must be within the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) or the Corkscrew Regional Ecological Watershed Lands (CREW) or other areas approved for mitigation by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The ultimate transfer of deed(s) of land(s) to Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands must occur prior to final construction plan/plat approvals. C. Control structures on-site shall be constructed in accordance with State and Federal permits. 5.7 WATER MANAGEMENT A. Detailed paving, grading, and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Excavation. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DEP and USACE permits. D. A copy of SFWMD Permit or Early Work Permit is required prior to construction plan approval. E. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum ½ inch of dry pre- treatment on- site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. 5.8 TRANSPORTATION A. The final location of major access points along Davis Boulevard shall be determined during the approval of the Final Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan. Such major access points shall provide primary access and internal road circulation and shall typically include turn land improvements based on projected traffic conditions. Secondary access points between Davis Boulevard and individual parcels shall be prohibited unless approved consistent with the Final Subdivision Plat as may be amended and with the following access control criteria: 1. safety 2. proper geometric design 3. effects on the capacity of Davis Boulevard 4. traffic volumes using the proposed access point 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 30 of 31 5. other roadways providing access to the site 6. the combined effect of access to any and all tracts both within this PUD and adjacent PUD's 7. spacing of access points Collier County reserves the right to close any approved secondary access to and from Davis Boulevard should it at any time be found to create a traffic hazard or to adversely affect the capacity or level of service of that roadway. B. The road impact fee shall be as set forth in Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 74, as amended, and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners. C. Access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee credits and shall be in place before any certificates of occupancy are issued. D. All traffic control devices used shall conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as required by Chapter 316.0747 Florida Statutes. E. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy following conversion of the hotel unit to a multi-family unit for Parcel 11, a sidewalk will be constructed from Tollgate Boulevard to the building. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center PUD Words struck through are deleted; PL20230007874 Words underlined are added Last Revised: July 5, 2024 Page 31 of 31 SECTION VI DEVIATIONS As to Parcel 11 as shown on the Master Plan attached hereto: DEVIATION #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.A, which requires Type B landscape buffers to separate residential and commercial development, to allow for 5-foot Type A buffers on the north, south and west side of Parcel 11 and for a 15-foot Type B buffer on the east side of Parcel 11 to be located outside of the FPL easement in the median area on the east side of the building in Parcel 11. This deviation applies to the reuse of the existing building on Parcel 11 only and does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished or if the existing adjacent parking lot is redeveloped with a new use. DEVIATION #2 seeks relief from LDC section 4.05.04 G, which requires 1 parking space per multi-family dwelling unit plus 0.5 spaces per each efficiency unit as well as additional parking for recreational facilities and other common uses identified in LDC section 4.05.04 G Table 17, to allow for a total of 165 parking spaces to satisfy the parking requirement within Parcel 11. This deviation does not apply if the existing building on Parcel 11 is demolished. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO Tollgate Commercial Center DRI DRI Amendment EXPEDITED REVIEW FORM 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPEDITED REVIEW Name of Development: _Tollgate Commercial Center_ Address/Location: ___3880 Tollgate Boulevard (Parcels 76885005005 and 76885005102)______ Applicant /Agent: __RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture c/o Jem Frantz, AICP Phone / Email: _(239) 357-9580 jfrantz@rviplanning.com__________________ Size of Property: ___5+/- acres____________________________________________________ Proposed Use: _ Residential________________________________ Total Number Residential Units Planned: 110 dwelling units Number of Affordable Housing Units Planned: Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 121% - 140% AMI - GAP Income Rental _13_OR Owner Occupied _13__ 81% - 120% AMI - Moderate Income Rental _12_OR Owner Occupied _12__ 51% - 80% AMI - Low Income Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 50% or less AMI - Very Low Income Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 30% or less AMI - Extremely Low Income Permit Number, if available: __PL2023007874 & PL20230007875 & PL20230007876_____________ Proposed Land Use Restriction: X - PUD Restriction or AHDB Agreement -Developer Agreement -Impact Fee Deferral Agreement -Grant Restriction -Other: __________________________ I hereby certify that the above described project meets the definition of providing affordable Housing in Collier County and as such is entitled to participate in the County’s “Expedited Review Procedures of Affordable Housing” as described in the Collier County Administrative Code through Resolution No. 2018-40. By: Date: Community and Human Services Division By: Date: Jan 17, 2024_______ Builder/ Owner/ Developer/ Contractor This Certification must be submitted to the Growth Management Department with permit application package, or plan revisions, within nine months of date of issuance. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Att B - Tollgate Commercial Center DRI Hearing Backup (29782 : PL20230007875 Toll Gate Commercial Center DRI DO 09/20/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.5 Doc ID: 29745 Item Summary: PL20230011318 - Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict - east side of Palm River Boulevard at Viking Way - An Ordinance of The Board Of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, The Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, Specifically amending The Future Land Use Element And Map series by adding The Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict to The Urban Mixed-Use District to allow up to 41 multi-family rental units. The subject property is located on the east side of Palm River Boulevard at Viking Way, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, Consisting of 2.06± 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. [Coordinator: Parker Klopf, Planner III] (Companion Item PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict) Meeting Date: 09/20/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Parker Kloph 08/28/2024 9:48 AM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 08/28/2024 9:48 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch GMD Approver Completed 09/09/2024 3:56 PM Unknown Jaime Cook GMCDD Reviewer Completed 09/09/2024 4:16 PM Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/09/2024 4:26 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/09/2024 5:00 PM Zoning James Sabo Review Item Completed 09/10/2024 10:18 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Completed 09/10/2024 10:22 AM Growth Management Community Development Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 09/13/2024 3:16 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 09/20/2024 9:00 AM 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 767 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20230011318/SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SUBDISRICT (Companion to PUDZ-PL20230011319) ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Applicant: Arthrex, Inc. Owner: Palm River Accommodations, LLC 1265 Creekside Pkwy #210 1265 Creekside Pkwy #210 Naples, FL 34108 Naples, FL 34108 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises 2.06± acres and is located at 208 Palm River Blvd., approximately 1/3 of a Mile north of Immokalee Road in Township 48, Section 23, and Range 25. 9.A.5.a Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Staff Report CCPC PL20230011318 [Revision 1] (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict PL20230011318 2 9.A.5.aPacket Pg. 769Attachment: Staff Report CCPC PL20230011318 [Revision 1] (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River PL20230011318 3 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to create a new subdistrict called Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict that will provide lands for a maximum of 41 multi-family dwelling units to provide corporate employee housing. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Subject Property: The 2.06±-acre subject site is designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Urban, Urban Mixed- Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Furthermore, the 16-unit acre density allowance on this property was determined to be Consistent by Policy through the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance No. 90 - 23. This section of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states that where such properties were determined, through the implementation of an Ordinance, to be “improved property,” as defined in that Ordinance, the zoning on said properties shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element and those properties have been identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. Therefore, according to the official zoning map, the site is zoned as a residential multi-family with a density allowance of 16 units an acre (RMF-16). The Urban Residential Future Land Use designation is intended to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Surrounding Lands: North: Future Land Use Designation; Urban Residential. Zoned; Residential Multi-Family (RMF- 16). Land Use; Multi-family Residential. East: Future Land Use Designation; Urban Residential. Zoned; Residential Multi-Family (RMF-16)/ Golf Course (GC). Land Use; Multi-family Residential South: Future Land Use Designation; Urban Residential. Zoned; Residential Multi-Family (RMF-6). Land Use; Multi-family Residential West: Future Land Use Designation; Urban Residential. Zoned; Residential Multi-Family (RMF-16)/Residential Single Family (RSF-3). Land Use; Multi/Single-family Residential In summary, the existing and planned land uses in the larger surrounding area are primarily multi-family and low-density single-family residences. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The subject 2.06±-acre site currently consists of a 12-unit multi-family complex developed in the 1980s. The existing onsite units only take advantage of half the eligible density available to the property through the Growth Management Plan. The proposed subdistrict is being requested in conjunction with the proposed Palm River Corporate Housing rezone, and the project is intended to provide 41 multi-family dwelling units for employees in need of transitional housing while searching for permanent residences in Southwest Florida. The applicant has provided a Needs Analysis for the subject property at 208 Palm River Blvd., Collier County, Florida. Within the analysis provided, the consultant addressed the following topics: Market demand, housing supply, length of stay in existing corporate housing, and employment projections for Arthrex. Staff assessment of the site shows that the property is underutilized. The site currently has 12 units; however, the current RMF-16 zoning designation would permit 33 units by right on the property. 9.A.5.a Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Staff Report CCPC PL20230011318 [Revision 1] (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict PL20230011318 4 One of the County’s goals is to attract and retain private sector companies that provide job opportunities. As stated in the narrative statement, long-term housing availability within Collier County is limited, and Arthrex is finding it increasingly difficult to fill the approximately 300 open positions. The length of stay within existing transitional housing has increased from 60 days to over 135 days in the 40 existing properties that Arthrex has throughout the county. As a solution, Arthrex’s proposal for this site will help alleviate the issues but will not solve them completely. Allowing companies to provide interim corporate employee housing will also assist in retaining these companies and/or expanding in Collier County. Arthrex is one of the largest private sector employers in Collier County and has an economic benefit to Colli er County in excess of $2 billion. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has enacted a policy within the last few years that requires any request for density above the maximum allowed in that future land use designation to require a minimum of 30% of units to be restricted to affordable levels. As proposed, the applicant is only potentially restricting 8 of the units to 100% of AMI, which only calculates to 19.5% of the units, should the project no longer provide transitional corporate housing. It is the opinion of staff that the number of units be increased to 12 across the board to more closely comply with BCC policy at a rate of 29.3%. The proposed allocation of income-restricted units, as-is, only becomes available if the facility is no longer used for transitional corporate housing. Comprehensive Planning Staff believes the petitioner has provided appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan Amendment identified below. Though the inclusion of additional density within the proposed subdistrict is inconsistent with the urban residential subdistrict, staff agrees that there is a need for additional housing opportunities within Collier County to serve those future residents of this portion of Collier County. Furthermore, the proposed multi-family development is compatible with the adjacent and entitled multi-family and single-family land uses. Comprehensive Planning Staff finds that the creation of the proposed subdistrict on the property to allow the uses identified within the subdistrict would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Growth Management Plan as well as the Florida state statutes listed below. CRITERIA FOR GMP AMENDMENTS FLORIDA STATUTES: Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically 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, as indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic 9.A.5.a Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Staff Report CCPC PL20230011318 [Revision 1] (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict PL20230011318 5 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. 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. Section 163.3187 Florida Statutes: [qualifications to follow the small-scale GMPA process] Process for adoption of a 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 2.06± 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 9.A.5.a Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Staff Report CCPC PL20230011318 [Revision 1] (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict PL20230011318 6 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 that were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: The petitioner conducted a NIM on Wednesday, January 10, 2024, at Arthrex offices located at 1 Arthrex Way. The meeting was also broadcast via ZOOM. The meeting began at 5:30 p.m. Agent Wayne Arnold presented information about the proposed GMPA and PUD rezoning, noting the project's intent is to demolish existing buildings and replace them with transitional corporate housing for Arthrex employees. Concerns were raised about light potentially shining into the first floor of the villas across the creek and whether any buffering would address that issue. Discussion followed about the golf cart path and easement that transects the site and whether the utility easement for the golf course’s irrigation and electric equipment would be maintained. Attendees also asked about location and safety of the school bus stop at the project’s driveway. Concerns were expressed about the potential height of the building compared to what is currently on site and how the project would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • There is need for transitional/workforce housing, capital investment, and economic development to strengthen and diversify the community’s economy in this area. • County water and wastewater service is available to the site. • Transportation system impacts have not been identified with this petition. Environmental Findings: The subject property is 2.06 acres. The existing site conditions were field verified by staff during the review of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the project. The project is currently zoned residential RMF-16 and has been developed with eighteen (18) residential units. The proposed GMP amendment will not affect the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. There is no preservation required native vegetation or listed species present on-site; therefore, the petition meets the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1, Policy 7.1.1, and section 3.05.07 of the LDC. Environmental Services staff recommends approval. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on September 4, 2024. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. The criteria for changes to the Future Land Use Map is in Section 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes. The Affordable Housing provisions are not likely to ever be triggered because this rental project will operate like any other traditional rental property except that it will not rent to people working in Lee 9.A.5.a Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Staff Report CCPC PL20230011318 [Revision 1] (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict PL20230011318 7 County or people who are not working (including retirees). As proposed, Transitional Corporate Housing is not limited to employees of Arthrex or any targeted business industry. –DDP STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot recommend approval of the subdistrict as proposed and recommends that the affordable housing commitments be increased to 12 of the 41 units be restricted to 100% of the median income from the time of development and the Collier County Planning Commission forward petition PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict GMPA to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve and adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce and other statutorily required agencies. NOTE: This petition has been tentatively scheduled for the November 12th, 2024, BCC meeting. 9.A.5.a Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Staff Report CCPC PL20230011318 [Revision 1] (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict ORDINANCE NO. 2024- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 41 MULTI.FAMILY RENTAL UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALM RIVER BOULEVARD AT YIKING WAY, IN SECTION 23, TOWI\SHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 2.06+ ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTM DATE. [PL20230011318] 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, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Palm River Accommodations LLC, requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Map Series; and [23-CMP-0 r 2 03 I 187 7 408 I 1] 27 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistict GMPA I PL202300I 1318|8127DA4 Page 1 of3 CAO 9.A.5.b Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Ordinance - 082724 (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(l), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small-Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or a rural area of opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; an WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COI-INTY, FLORIDA, thAt: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTIONTWO: 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. [23-CMP-0 I 2 03 I 1 87 7 4o8l t) 27 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistict GMPA I PL2023001 l3l8 | 812712024 a<e Page 2 of 3 SECTION ONE: 9.A.5.b Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Ordinance - 082724 (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) SECTION THREE: EFFECTTVE 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 or commence before it has become effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this _ day of 2024. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK By: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COLTNTY, FLOzuDA By Deputy Clerk Chris Hall, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Derek D. Perry Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment [23-CMP-0 l 203 I t 87 7 4081 t) 27 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential SuMisrict GMPA I PL2023001 13 I 8 | 8127 244 Page 3 of3 ?o 9.A.5.b Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Ordinance - 082724 (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) Exhibit A COTLIER COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT A. Urban Mixed-Use District 1. Urban ResidentialSubdistrict 30. Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict located at 208 Palm River Blvd aoproximatelv U3 mile north of lmmokalee Road. The intent of this subdistrict is to allow for a maximum of 41 multi-familv rental dwelling units to orovide corporate emplovee proximitv to corporate headquarters. The develooment of this subdistrict will be governed bv the followingcriteria Development shall be in the form of a PUD. The maximum number of dwelli 1. units shall be required to be income restricted to individuals or families having incomes at the 100% Area Median lncome (AMl) for Collier Countv. otherwise provided bv Collier Countv. 2. e. stav for a minimum of 30 davs. a. b. c. d. f. The Densitv Ratine Svstem is not applicable to this Subdistrict. qo l. Urban Designation llllllllllllllllllrrrrrrrlllrlllltlrlllllllllllllllttttttttrlllartlllllllllltlllllll tllllltlllttallttatatltttlallttltttllttttlttttttrllttlltlllllllllllllllllllllllllllt 9.A.5.b Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Ordinance - 082724 (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) EXHIBITA PL20230011318 PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RESIDBNTIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA untry G o =o Lo .zt. SUBJECT SITE V P \i\ _!- \.\ \ 9R o-ql -) CL og,F Ul e P olo -(Er Lo u ADOPTED - XXXX, XXXX (Ord. No. XXXX-X) 0 150 300 600 Feet LEGEND E=PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICTtPREPARED BY BETH YANG,AICP GROMH MAMGEMENT DEPT FILE PALM RIWR CORPORATE HOUSING SUAOISTRICT SITE LOCATION MAP OMfl MXD MfE 1Z5nO23 o ,( I to '!r m mokalee RD 9.A.5.b Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Ordinance - 082724 (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) EXHIBIT "A'PETITION P1202300113't8RrsE l Rr6E T Rr?E 2024-2050 FUTURE LAND USE MAP Collier County Florida ffi R30E R3'rE I nsze I R33E I nrce I --{ o o I{o "P W -,-,.----*( ) kdo-.,-.N-".--,"-* t--thrr-'ilEke T--t bdh.,r-r*qtu -ffifluiM{ Uro Em*4ll',lfliLxGDU*N'8, Ur@uEn.nEr @--"- ttEdl_&.Dfi' @ ft*trbhe E***-."."-*,fl *--.* u 't.r-hrrxton, L l '!t.irnM,7- *Hilii^, r=,."*-.".m i__l *.-.-8.-, E******* -*,,-*, { a {{o I b t, { o SUBJECT SITE o + @o { oo { o G o s\\ I o I o I N a { o -{ o I o 0 R25E I R26E AMPTED. 'ANUARY 1939 ATENDEO - J NUARY '990 ATENDED.OCIOBER I997 ACEttrO FE6RUIRY r999 AIENEO. FEBFUARY 2M AMENOED. MARCH 2OO1 ATENEO. SEPIEIAER !3 ?OI' AMENOED. JANUARY A 2OI3 AMETOED -OCTOAER 2a 2023(ord No 202!-51) {ord No l0r.-r0, AXENDEO.JUNEO 2015 --g_ Ele o{9.1 R27E R28E R29E R30E R31 E R32E R33E R34E d E e DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVERLAY AREAARE SHO\ATN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TITLED: "COLLIER COUNTY RURAL A AGRICULTURAL t- ii:6n L ATENO€O . ] NUARY 199A 9.A.5.b Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Ordinance - 082724 (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (PL20230011318) Growth Management Data and Analysis Arthrex currently employs over 4.5k people in SW Florida. Arthrex has consistently averaged double digit annual headcount growth however due to the housing crisis in Collier County we are finding it increasing difficult to fill open positions. We currently have about 300 open job requisitions for our SW Florida locations. The length of stay in our transitional housing has increased from an average of 60 days or less to over 135 days due to the challenges finding permanent housing. In order to help alleviate this challenge we have kept over 40 temporary housing units for the last two years with additional units in 2022 carried to help with hurricane Ian displaced employees. Based on these numbers we are projecting our requests for transitional housing will increase by a minimum of 10% annually. As you can see even with a 41-unit development we will still need an increasing number of units to supplement the proposed Palm River project. One of Collier County’s goals is to attract and retain private sector companies that provide job opportunities in Collier County. Arthrex currently employs 3,800 people in Collier County. Arthrex currently has 200 employment vacancies in Collier County. Arthrex as well as other employers in Collier County have a difficult time recruiting people to work in Collier County due to the cost of Housing. Providing interim corporate housing to allow new employees to better understand the housing options in Collier County is critical to recruiting employees to Collier County. The need for interim corporate housing applies to all levels of income. Currently Arthrex and other employers have interim housing in many locations. Providing interim corporate housing which allows many employees to live near each other allows new employees meet other similarly situated employees and allows them to assimilate into the Arthrex corporate community. This type of interim housing also allows them to be become familiar with the benefits of living in Collier County. This will result in higher employee satisfaction and assist in retaining employees in Collier County. Allowing companies to provide interim corporate employee housing will also assist in retaining these companies and/or expanding in Collier County. Arthrex is one of the largest private sector employers in Collier County and has an economic benefit to Collier County in excess of $2 billion. The subject growth management plan amendment that will allow Arthrex to maintain and recruit new employees is consistent with the Economic Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The Goal of the Economic Element says that the County will achieve and maintain a diversified and stable economy by providing a positive business climate that assures maximum employment opportunities while maintaining a high quality of life. Implementing Policy 1.2 says that the County will support the opportunity for development and establishment of medical related research and manufacturing facilities. Arthrex is a global leader in medical device research and manufacturing which support for their continued growth and development is consistent with this Policy of the Economic Element. March 22, 2024 Page 1 of 3 Growth Management Data Analysis-r2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Growth Management Data and Analysis (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) March 22, 2024 Growth Management Data Analysis-r2.docx Page 2 of 3 Providing opportunities for corporate housing in close proximity to Arthrex’s corporate campus is also consistent with Objective 3 of the Economic Element which says that Collier County will support programs designed to promote and encourage the expansion and retention of existing industries in order to maintain a diverse economic base. The corporate housing is an initiative by Arthrex to attract and retain employees which is critical to the long-term success of Arthrex. 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Growth Management Data and Analysis (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) March 22, 2024 Growth Management Data Analysis-r2.docx Page 3 of 3 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Growth Management Data and Analysis (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) ND-40118376NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M. on September 20, 2024, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 41 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALM RIVER BOULEVARD AT VIKING WAY, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 2.06± 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. [PL20230011318] AND 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 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-16 ZONING DISTRICT (RMF-16) TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RPUD, TO ALLOW UP TO 41 MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS, O 2.06± ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALM RIVER BOULEVARD AT VIKING WAY, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20230011319] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Ordinances will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk’s office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401, Naples, FL 34112, one (1) week prior to the scheduled hearing. Written comments must be filed the Zoning Division, prior to September 20, 2024. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/our-county/visitors/calendar-of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Ray Be s at 252-2463 or email to Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) w need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer, Chairman 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 784 Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144  Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151  LB 0005151  LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com November 2, 2023 Ms. Rachel Hansen Collier County Growth Management Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (PL20230011318), Submittal 1 Dear Ms. Hansen: Enclosed, please find the application for a proposed small-scale comprehensive plan amendment for a 2.06± acre project located at 208 Palm River Boulevard. The GMPA proposes to modify the FLUE map to add a new subdistrict to allow a multi-family development with a maximum of 41 multi-family dwelling units. A companion PUD Rezone application (Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD rezone application (PL20220001011) has been filed along with this petition. Documents filed with submittal 1 include the following: 1. Cover letter 2. Application 3. Professional Consultants 4. Exhibit A Legal Description 5. Exhibit B Amended Text 6. Exhibit C Proposed Future Land Use Designation 7. Land Use 8. Future Land Use Designation 9. FLUCCS Map 10. Exhibit D Proposed Subdistrict Map 11. Growth Management 12. Growth Management Data and Analysis 13. Public Facilities 14. Traffic Impact Statement 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Ms. Rachel Hansen RE: Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (PL20230011318), Submittal 1 November 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2 15. FIRM Map 16. Deed 17. Affidavit of Authorization 18. Addressing Checklist 19. Preapplication Notes Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP c: Palm River Accommodations, LLC Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. GradyMinor File (APRR-23) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (PL20230011318) Professional Consultants September 22, 2023 Page 1 of 1 Professional Consultants.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Planner/Project Management: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239.947.1144 warnold@gradyminor.com Land Use Attorney: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 239.435.3535 ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Traffic Engineer: James M. Banks, P.E., President JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. 4711 7th Avenue SW Naples, FL 34119 239.919.2767 jmbswte@msn.com 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (PL20230011318) Exhibit A Legal Description September 22, 2023 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A Legal Description.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com PARCEL NO. 1 A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID PARCEL BEING A PART OF BLOCK F, PALM RIVER ESTATES UNIT NO. 4, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, AT PAGE 70, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FORMERLY DESCRIBED AS RIVER ROYALE, PHASE 2, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 847, PAGE 286, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK F, RUN NORTH 30 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK F AND ITS NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION FOR 190.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTINUE NORTH 30 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST FOR 109.36 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 10 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST FOR 87.89 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 63 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 31 SECONDS WEST FOR 163.19 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PALM RIVER BOULEVARD, AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 672, AT PAGE 401, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN SOUTH 0 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR 259.58 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF A GOLF CART EASEMENT; THENCE RUN SOUTH 79 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE FOR 59.14 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN EASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 200.00 FEET (CHORD DISTANCE 125.84 FEET, CHORD BEARING NORTH 82 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST) FOR 128.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND PARCEL NO. 2 A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID PARCEL BEING A PART OF BLOCK F, PALM RIVER ESTATES, UNIT NO. 4, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, AT PAGE 70 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FORMERLY DESCRIBED AS RIVER ROYALE, PHASE 3, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 847, PAGE 287, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK F, RUN NORTH 0 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PALM RIVER BOULEVARD, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF PALM RIVER ESTATES, UNIT NO. 2, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, AT PAGE 96, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; FOR 216.19 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID PALM RIVER BOULEVARD, AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 672, AT PAGE 401, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS, FOR 22.35 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 0 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID PALM RIVER BOULEVARD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 672, PAGE 401, FOR 110.50 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF A GOLF CART EASEMENT; THENCE RUN SOUTH 79 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE FOR 59.14 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN EASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 200.00 FEET (CHORD DISTANCE 125.84 FEET, CHORD BEARING NORTH 82 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST) FOR 128.02 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK F; THENCE RUN SOUTH 30 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE FOR 190.47 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK F; THENCE RUN SOUTH 56 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK F FOR 304.49 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Palm River BLVDPa lm V iew D R Viking WAY Fl ame Vi ne DR C o r a l V i n e D RSource: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict Exhibit C - Proposed Future Land Use Designation Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict . 130 0 13065 Feet Legend Subject Property - 2.06+/- Acres Palm River Corporate Housing Residentail Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing PALM RIVER BLVD.VIKING WAY ZONED: GC, RMF-16, RSF-3 USE: GOLF COURSE, RESIDENTIAL ZONED : GC , RMF - 1 6 , RS F - 3USE: GO LF COURSE ,RESIDENT IAL ZONED: RMF-6, RSF-3 USE: RESIDENTIALZONED: GC, RMF-16, RSF-3USE: GOLF COURSE, RESIDENTIALSUBJECT PROPERTY - 2.06± ACRES EXISTING FLUE: URBAN DESIGNATION, MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT EXISTING ZONING: RMF-16 ADJ. PROPERTY ZONING LAND USE NORTH RMF-16, RSF-3, GC GOLF COURSE, RESIDENTIAL EAST RMF-16, RSF-3, GC GOLF COURSE, RESIDENTIAL SOUTH RMF-6, RSF-3 RESIDENTIAL WEST RSF-3, GC GOLF COURSE, RESIDENTIAL 0 300'150'SCALE: 1" = 300' GradyMinor Civil Engineers ●Land Surveyors ●Planners ●Landscape Architects Cert. of Auth. EB 0005151 Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 ZZZ.GradyMinor.coP Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 WHEN PLOTTED @ 8.5" X 11" 300 FOOT RADIUS SUBJECT PROPERTY 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Palm River BLVDPalm V ie w DR Viking WAY Flame V ine DRSource: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict Future Land Use Designation Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict . 130 0 13065 Feet Legend Subject Property - 2.06+/- Acres Urban Residential Subdistrict 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing VIKING WAY (PALM RIVER BLVD)100' R.O.W.FLUCCS CODE 1330 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL FLUCCS CODE 1820 GOLF COURSE FLUCCS CODE 5120 CANAL 0 100'50'SCALE: 1" = 100' GradyMinor Civil Engineers ●Land Surveyors ●Planners ●Landscape Architects Cert. of Auth. EB 0005151 Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 ZZZ.GradyMinor.coP Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 1330 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1.17± 1820 GOLF COURSE 0.76± 5120 CANAL 0.13± TOTAL 2.06± 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Im mokalee RD Piper BLVDPalm River BLVDCrown DRPal m View D R Viking WAY Sha r w o od DR Flame Vine DRCoral Vine DRParnu STO a kwood C T Fairway CIR Oakwood DRWading Bird CIRPebble Shores DRBent Tree LNCo u nt ry Cl u b L N Country Club DRPalm View DRSharwood DR Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict Exhibit D - Proposed New Inset Map . 570 0 570285 Feet Legend Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (PL20230011318) Growth Management January 24, 2024 Page 1 of 4 Growth Management-r1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com The small-scale growth management plan amendment proposes to establish a new infill subdistrict which would permit up to 41 multi-family rental dwelling units on the 2.06+/- acre property. The small-scale amendment is necessary to develop the proposed 41 multi-family dwelling units for use as Transitional Corporate Housing. The property is currently designated as Urban Residential Mixed Use, Urban Residential Mixed Use Subdistrict, which allows for a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre. However, the property is zoned RMF-16 which permits a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre, and the density is vested by Growth Management Plan Policies applicable to developed properties. The applicant wishes to develop the property at a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre to maximize the number of units on the property for use as corporate provided housing. The current zoning would support a maximum of 33 dwelling units; therefore, the request is increasing the allowable number of dwelling units by 8 units. The corporate entity provides short term housing for newly hired employees for them to settle into the community, save money for downpayment or rent for their longer-term housing, and it is an incentive to attract worker to this area where housing costs have in many cases outpaced the local wage structure. Transitional Corporate Housing has become an increasingly popular trend among larger employers and a report discussing the need for the employee housing has been provided as the data and analysis supporting the increase in density for the property. The GMPA and PUD applications include a definition for Transitional Corporate Housing which is: Transitional Corporate Housing is defined as renting a furnished apartment, condo, or home on a temporary basis to employees of companies located in Collier County while seeking permanent housing as an alternative to a traditional apartment, hotel or an extended hotel stay for a minimum of 30 days. Under, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, local governments may adopt small-scale amendments to their Growth Management Plans if the amendment impacts fewer than 50 acres. The proposed new sub-district consists of approximately 2.06+/- acres and is; therefore, eligible to seek the proposed small-scale amendment. A companion PUD rezoning application has been filed with Collier County. Chapter 163.3167 Scope of act.— (9) Each local government shall address in its comprehensive plan, as enumerated in this chapter, the water supply sources necessary to meet and achieve the existing and projected water use demand for the established planning period, considering the applicable plan developed pursuant to s. 373.709. The project currently has potable water and sewer service by Collier County Water Sewer District. No capacity issues exist or are anticipated in the service area. Chapter 163.3177 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing January 24, 2024 Page 2 of 4 Growth Management-r1.docx (6) (a) 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Arthrex is one of the top private sector employers in Collier County with over 3,800 employees in Collier County. Arthrex continues to grow locally and availability of housing for employees continues to be critical for both recruiting new employees and retaining existing employees. At the beginning of 2024, Arthrex has approximately 200 open positions. The opportunity to acquire the subject infill property and redevelop it with modern 41 unit housing for use as Transitional Corporate Housing will have a positive impact on Arthrex’s ability to remain a top employer in Collier County. A demand analysis has been prepared and accompanies this application with supporting data and analysis. Chapter 163.3177 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. 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 subject property was originally developed as a 12-unit condominium project some 30 years ago. the existing zoning supports additional multifamily housing at this location. The proposed small-scale plan amendment proposes to permit 8 additional dwelling units in support of the Transitional Corporate Housing for one of our County’s largest employers, which allow for their continued growth and contribution to the County’s economic vitality. The Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict is consistent with Chapter 163.3177, F.S. The subdistrict includes all available land of a size adequate to support a residential project. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing January 24, 2024 Page 3 of 4 Growth Management-r1.docx 163.3184 Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or plan amendment. The proposed amendment is consistent with Chapter 163.3184, F.S which establishes the criteria for small-scale comprehensive plan amendments to a growth management plan. 163.3187 Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment.— (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 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 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). The proposed amendment involves the use of less than 50 acres, the proposed amendment includes a map amendment and associated text relating directly to the map amendment, and the property is not located within an area of critical state concern. No State or regional impacts are associated with the proposed amendment. Project Justification Future Land Use Element: The 2.06± acre project is designated Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map. The small-scale growth management plan amendment proposes to establish a new infill subdistrict which would permit up to 41 multi-family dwelling units on the 2.06+/- acre property. All housing will be occupied by employees of Arthrex. While not affordable housing in the strict sense, the dwelling units will provide for below market rate housing for employees of various income levels. The subdistrict text has been structured to insure that in the event the property is no longer utilized for corporate provided employee housing, the 8 dwelling units that exceed the currently allowed zoned density will be income restricted to individuals or families earning 100% or less of the Area Median Income for Collier County. The proposed residential project is consistent with other provisions of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Staff has specifically requested that we address Future Land use Policies 5.6 and 7.1-7.4. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing January 24, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Growth Management-r1.docx The site currently is developed with 18 residential dwelling units, which is 15 dwelling units below the permissible density on the site. The companion RPUD rezone will replace the current RMF-16 zoning, which permits buildings to have a zoned height of 75’, which would correspond to an actual height of 85’ to 90’. The additional dwelling units can be developed utilizing all of the existing RMF- 16 development standards, including building height and building setbacks which insures compatibility of the proposed units with the existing surrounding similarly zoned properties. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to reduce the building height within the proposed PUD to a zoned height of 55 feet and an actual height of 65 feet. Policies 7.1-7.4 address smart growth and interconnectivity within the community. Due to the size and developed nature of surrounding properties, a physical vehicular interconnection is not possible. The site does have pedestrian connections to Palm River Boulevard via an existing sidewalk, and a golf cart pathway will continue to traverse the site, providing for transportation alternatives to vehicle travel. The site is located within one mile of the corporate headquarters where many of the residents will be employed. Transportation Element: Policy 5.1 requires that all projects are evaluated to determine their effect on 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. The TIS prepared in support of this small-scale amendment application concludes that no level of service issues will arise from development of the proposed 41 dwelling units. Public Facilities Element: The property is served by potable water and sanitary sewer services. Water and sewer service will be provided by Collier County Water Sewer District. No capacity issues have been identified or are anticipated in the future. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Policy 6.1.2 requires that developments in the Urban area must retain a minimum of 25% of existing native vegetation on-site. The site has been entirely cleared in support of the existing residential buildings and site improvements; therefore, no on-site vegetation preservation area is required. The applicant has proposed that a minimum of 50% of the site will be utilized for useable open space. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (PL20230011318) Growth Management Data and Analysis March 22, 2024 Page 1 of 3 Growth Management Data Analysis-r2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Arthrex currently employs over 4.5k people in SW Florida. Arthrex has consistently averaged double digit annual headcount growth however due to the housing crisis in Collier County we are finding it increasing difficult to fill open positions. We currently have about 300 open job requisitions for our SW Florida locations. The length of stay in our transitional housing has increased from an average of 60 days or less to over 135 days due to the challenges finding permanent housing. In order to help alleviate this challenge we have kept over 40 temporary housing units for the last two years with additional units in 2022 carried to help with hurricane Ian displaced employees. Based on these numbers we are projecting our requests for transitional housing will increase by a minimum of 10% annually. As you can see even with a 41-unit development we will still need an increasing number of units to supplement the proposed Palm River project. One of Collier County’s goals is to attract and retain private sector companies that provide job opportunities in Collier County. Arthrex currently employs 3,800 people in Collier County. Arthrex currently has 200 employment vacancies in Collier County. Arthrex as well as other employers in Collier County have a difficult time recruiting people to work in Collier County due to the cost of Housing. Providing interim corporate housing to allow new employees to better understand the housing options in Collier County is critical to recruiting employees to Collier County. The need for interim corporate housing applies to all levels of income. Currently Arthrex and other employers have interim housing in many locations. Providing interim corporate housing which allows many employees to live near each other allows new employees meet other similarly situated employees and allows them to assimilate into the Arthrex corporate community. This type of interim housing also allows them to be become familiar with the benefits of living in Collier County. This will result in higher employee satisfaction and assist in retaining employees in Collier County. Allowing companies to provide interim corporate employee housing will also assist in retaining these companies and/or expanding in Collier County. Arthrex is one of the largest private sector employers in Collier County and has an economic benefit to Collier County in excess of $2 billion. The subject growth management plan amendment that will allow Arthrex to maintain and recruit new employees is consistent with the Economic Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The Goal of the Economic Element says that the County will achieve and maintain a diversified and stable economy by providing a positive business climate that assures maximum employment opportunities while maintaining a high quality of life. Implementing Policy 1.2 says that the County will support the opportunity for development and establishment of medical related research and manufacturing facilities. Arthrex is a global leader in medical device research and manufacturing which support for their continued growth and development is consistent with this Policy of the Economic Element. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing March 22, 2024 Page 2 of 3 Growth Management Data Analysis-r2.docx Providing opportunities for corporate housing in close proximity to Arthrex’s corporate campus is also consistent with Objective 3 of the Economic Element which says that Collier County will support programs designed to promote and encourage the expansion and retention of existing industries in order to maintain a diverse economic base. The corporate housing is an initiative by Arthrex to attract and retain employees which is critical to the long-term success of Arthrex. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing March 22, 2024 Page 3 of 3 Growth Management Data Analysis-r2.docx 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (PL20230011318) Public Facilities September 22, 2023 Page 1 of 4 Public Facilities.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: The subject 2.06± acre property proposes to create a new subdistrict to allow a maximum of 41 residential dwelling units. The site currently provides for up to 33 dwelling units The public facilities analysis evaluates the project impacts on Class A public facilities including potable water, wastewater, drainage, parks, schools, roadways, fire/EMS and solid waste. The source for the LOS information is the Collier County 2021 AUIR, unless otherwise noted. Potable Water The property is located within the Collier County Water Sewer District’s regional potable water service area. Residential multi-family: Existing 33 dwelling units x 2.5 pph x 130 gpcd = 10,725 gpd Peak: 10,725 gpd x 1.3 = 13,943 gpd Proposed 41 dwelling units x 2.5 pph x 130 gpcd = 13,325 gpd Peak: 13,325 gpd x 1.3 = 17,323 gpd Collier County LOS: 130 gpcd There are no existing or anticipated capacity issues; therefore, there are no LOS issues. Data Source: Collier County 2022 AUIR The proposed additional dwelling units will not create any LOS issues related to potable water. Sanitary Sewer The property is located within the Collier County Water Sewer District’s North County Water Reclamation Facility's service area. The LOS for wastewater is based on residential population generating 90 gpcd; therefore, the proposed project will not cause any LOS issues. Residential multi-family: Existing 33 dwelling units x 2.5 pph x 90 gpcd = 7,425 gpd Peak: 7,425 gpd x 1.21 = 8,984.25 gpd 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing September 22, 2023 Page 2 of 4 Public Facilities.docx Proposed 41 dwelling units x 2.5 pph x 90 gpcd = 9,225 gpd Peak: 9,225 gpd x 1.21 = 11,163 gpd There are no existing or anticipated capacity issues; therefore, there are no LOS issues. Data Source: Collier County 2022 AUIR The proposed additional dwelling units will not create any LOS issues related to sanitary sewer. Arterial and Collector Roads Please refer to the Traffic Impact Statement for discussion of the project’s impact on the LOS for arterial and collector roadways within the project’s radius of development influence. Drainage The County has adopted a LOS standard for private developments which requires development to occur consistent with water quantity and quality standards established in Ordinances 74-50, 90-10, 2001-2 and LDC Ordinance 2004-41, as may be amended. The property will be issued an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), which has established requirements for water quality treatment, storm water runoff attenuation and controlled off-site discharge of storm water runoff. The proposed development is consistent with Collier County LOS standards. Solid Waste The proposed project is estimated to generate the following amounts of solid waste. LOS: 2 years of constructed lined cell capacity 555,384 Tons Available cell capacity 3,935,561 Tons Solid waste generation per year: Residential multi-family: Existing 33 x 0.64 x 2.5 = 52.8 tons/year Proposed 41 x 0.64 x 2.5 = 65.6 tons/year Total Solid Waste Generated Per Year = 65.6 tons The project is consistent with Collier County LOS standards and will nave no negative impact to the LOS standard. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing September 22, 2023 Page 3 of 4 Public Facilities.docx Data Source: Collier County 2022 AUIR Parks: Community and Regional The increased residential units will pay impact fees. No adverse impacts to Community or Regional Parks result from this new overlay as the project will pay impact fees. Schools The increased residential units will pay school impact fees. No adverse impacts to schools result from this new overlay as the project will pay impact fees. Fire Control, Sheriff and EMS The proposed project lies within the North Collier Fire and Rescue District. The North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District - Station #44, located at 8970 Hammock Oak Dr, and Station #46, 3410 Pine Ridge Road, which is approximately 3.8 miles and 2.6 miles from the property at Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Road. No significant impacts to Fire Control level of service are anticipated due to the proposed project. Estimated impact fees for EMS and fire would be determined at time of SDP based on the size or type of development. Sheriff, Fire Protection and EMS Services location/address of facilities intended to serve the project are; North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District - Station #44 8970 Hammock Oak Dr., Naples, FL 34108 North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District - Station #46 3410 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, FL 34105 Collier County Sheriff's Office - District 1 776 Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Naples, FL 34108 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing September 22, 2023 Page 4 of 4 Public Facilities.docx Existing Services and Public Facilities Map: 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 829 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 831Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 832 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 841 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 842Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 843 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 844Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (PL20230011318) CAT Route Map January 24, 2024 Page 1 of 1 CAT Route Map.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 868Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION: PL20230011318 – Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict; and PL20230011319 – Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Rezone In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requirements, a neighborhood Information meeting (NIM) hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. (GradyMinor) and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Palm River Accommodations, LLC (Applicant) will be held January 10, 2024, 5:30 pm at Arthrex (1 Arthrex Way, Naples, FL 34108). Palm River Accommodations, LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) establishing the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Rezone from the RMF-16 Zoning District to the Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD to allow redevelopment of the property with a maximum of 41 residential dwelling units for corporate employee housing for Arthrex. The subject property is comprised of 2.06± acres and is located at 208 Palm River Blvd in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. If you have questions, please contact Sharon Umpenhour with GradyMinor by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or phone: 239-947-1144. For project information or to register to participate remotely* go to, GradyMinor.com/Planning. Any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. *Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The applicant and GradyMinor are not responsible for technical issues. PROJECT LOCATION GRADYMINOR.COM/PLAN 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 10A |WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2023 |NAPLES DAILY NEWS + NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION: PL20230011318 – Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict; and PL20230011319 – Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Rezone In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requirements, a neighborhood Information meeting (NIM) hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. (GradyMinor) and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Palm River Accommodations, LLC (Applicant) will be held January 10, 2024, 5:30 pm at Arthrex (1 Arthrex Way, Naples, FL 34108). Palm River Accommodations, LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) establishing the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Rezone from the RMF-16 Zoning District to the Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD to allow redevelopment of the property with a maximum of 41 residential dwelling units for corporate employee housing for Arthrex. The subject property is comprised of 2.06± acres and is located at 208 Palm River Blvd in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. If you have questions, please contact Sharon Umpenhour with GradyMinor by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or phone: 239-947-1144. For project information or to register to participate remotely* go to, gradyminor.com/ Planning. Any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. *Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The applicant and GradyMinor are not responsible for technical issues.ND-38150568 ND-38178008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at 9:00 A.M. on January 9, 2024, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE 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 TOURIST (RT) ZONING DISTRICT AND CONSERVATION (CON) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE 12425 UNION ROAD RPUD TO ALLOW UP TO 109 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN PORT OF THE ISLANDS, APPROXIMATELY ½ MILE NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (US 41) AT 12400 AND 12425 UNION ROAD, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 52, RANGE 28, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 51.5± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20220004175]. A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted ten (10) minutes to speak on an item. Written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/our- county/visitors/calendar-of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Geoffrey Willig at 252-8369 or email to Geoffrey.Willig@colliercountyfl.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RICK LOCASTRO, CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER By: Merline Forgue, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) NewportDRCaysDRUnion RDTamiamiTRLE !I Project Location (((((((((AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddd JJJJJJJJJJJuuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssssssssssssssssttttttttttt iiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn TTTTTTTTTTiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee fffffffffffffooooofoffofooooooofoffoffofoofoffofoorrrrrrrrrrrrr CCCCCCCCCCCCCCChhhhhhhhhh ssssssssssssss TTTTTTTT ttttttttttooooooooooooooo NNNNNNNNNNNN nnnnnnnnnnnnssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!! Uncover: ➢Where was Naples’ last nudist colony? ➢Did Marco Polo really discover Marco Island? ➢Which celebrity “gets down at night” in Naples? ➢Where is Naples’ best local hangout? ➢What is “Square Grouper”? ➢Where on Fifth Avenue did Charles Lindbergh land his plane? All Answers at our Website Below! Naples Secrets in the Sun is available at Barnes and Noble (www.bn.com), Amazon (www.amazon.com/books), or at our own site: www.NaplesSecretsintheSun.com. Secrets in the Sun also contains the wit & wisdom of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Croce, and Picard! • A great gift for Christmas (or, for our British friends, Boxing Day). • Make sure all visiting friends and family get a copy. At least, they will know what they are getting into before they arrive!!! Get Your Copy at Sunshine Booksellers or Naples Transportation & Tours Experience - Naples Center P.S. The Author is available (at molsattire@gmail.com)for book talks/signings at all clubs and communities. President Joe Biden announced the launch of a national database on Mon- day to help hold law enforcement ac- countable for misconduct in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and na- tional conversations about American policing. The president touted the database, which will track serious misconduct by federal law enforcement officers, as a mechanism to help prevent bad hiring decisions. “This database will ensure that rec- ords of serious misconduct by federal law enforcement officers are readily available to agencies considering hiring those officers,” Biden said in a state- ment. The Biden administration commit- ted to creating the database in a May 2022 executive order that marked the two-year anniversary of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police of- ficer Derek Chauvin, who held a knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine min- utes. The killing sparked outrage across the country and calls for police reform, particularly around policing of Black communities and other people of color. The National Law Enforcement Ac- countability Database or “NLEAD” will track eight areas of behavior that the administration classified as “serious misconduct” by former and current federal law enforcement officers over the past seven years, according to the Justice Department. Forms of serious misconduct include using excessive force, making false reports, engaging in bias or discrimination, and sexual mis- conduct. It will also include officer commendations and awards. “This database will give our law en- forcement agencies an important new tool for vetting and hiring officers and agents that will help strengthen our ef- forts to build and retain that trust,” At- torney General Merrick Garland said in a separate statement Monday. The database won’t be searchable by the public, but Justice Department em- ployees and authorized users at other federal law enforcement agencies will ultimately get access, according to a department official. The database cur- rently includes Justice Department of- ficers but will be expanded to include other federal law enforcement “in the coming months,” the official said. The department said it will publish a public report each year with aggregated data that keeps law enforcement offi- cers anonymous. It said it has also part- nered with a police training association to expand a national registry of decerti- fication and revocation actions against state and local law enforcement officers as a way to encourage accountability efforts in state and local agencies. George Floyd’s killing in 2020 sparked outrage across the country and calls for police reform.DRAKE BENTLEY/MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL FILE Aysha Bagchi USA TODAY Biden launches national law enforcement database 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 1NAME1NAME2NAME3NAME4NAME5NAME6LEGAL1LEGAL2LEGAL3LEGAL4FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE185 PALM RIVER INC1400 HUMMINGBIRD LANENAPLES, FL 34105---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK ALOT 46 LESS OR 1800 PG 197965471800007 UAIELLO, PHIL1008 MANATEE RD G-101NAPLES, FL 34114---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 426180160006 UANNE R BRANSTRATOR LIV TRUST 137 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 75965270960009 UBAKER II, RICHARD JMEAGHAN BAKER300 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3565521400001 UBETTEN, RANDALL & LISABETH A164 CORAL VINE DRIVENAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4465221760009 UBONNER, LANCE N121 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---1135PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 75765270880008 UBONNIE JEAN HILTON REV TRUST 180 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5701PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 8565223360009 UBRADLEY, JOE M & ELAINE11432 QUAIL VILLAGE WAYNAPLES, FL 34119---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1826180720006 UBRANT, KAREN G261 PALM RIVER BLVD APT B201NAPLES, FL 34110---2118PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-20165620280009 UBROWN, SARAH626 PALM VIEW DRIVE UNIT #1NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 126330040002 UCAHILL, SUSAN MROBERT M FAULKNER58 MANOR SQUARESPARTA, NJ 07871---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-20265620480003 UCANNON, TIMOTHY P & LISA L1714 W JACKSON STPAINESVILLE, OH 44077---1314 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG D-10169700520009 UCANTILLI FAMILY TRUST8268 VIA VITTORIA WAYORLANDO, FL 32819---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 53565270040000 UCHARRON, SUSAN A175 CROWN POINT DRIVEUNIT 8NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 826380080009 UCHIDSEY, DAVID & ANNE M175 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5702PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4765221880002 UCOLBY ROBERTSON REV TRUST ANTHONY ALLEN REPICKY 312 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 33OR 1778 PG 42065521320000 UCOMERIATO, LINDA306 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1144PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3465521360002 UCONGER, CLARINA M250 PALM RIVER BLVD # B202NAPLES, FL 34110---2106RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG B-20269700320005 UCONNOLLY, JEAN P20 BROADWAYGREAT NECK, NY 11021---4439 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG D-20169700600000 UCRONAUER, RAYMOND F281 PALM RIVER BLVD #201NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-20165620120004 UCROWN DRIVE 173 LLC9698 OXFORD STREETNAPLES, FL 34109---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 926380120008 UDAVIS, PAULINE B657 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5711COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-326230120006 UDENARDIS, TIMOTHY MCASSANDRE T DENARDIS108 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---1136PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 535B OR 1075 PG 198965270120001 UDENARDIS, TIMOTHY MCASSANDRE T DENARDIS MARY P DENARDIS108 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---113623 48 25 BEG SW1/4 CNR OF LOT535A PALM RIVER EST 2, E 154.94FT, S 35FT, E 50FT S29.52FT, SW1/4 ALG STREAM TO 00159320000 UDIEKEN JOINT TRUST143 OAKWOOD CTNAPLES, FL 34110---1145PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK FLOT 2265475920006 UDIMARTINO FAMILY TRUST561 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5717COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1626180640005 UDIMARTINO, JOHN ANTHONY561 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1926180760008 UDONNA L WOODS TRUST201 PALM RIVER BLVD # 102NAPLES, FL 34110---2113PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-10265620720006 UDOUGHERTY, GREGORY TARACELIS D DOUGHERTY 713 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-426280480000 UDRESSLER, DANIEL P765 PALM VIEW DR #DP7NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-726280600000 UDUNN, TRACY PAULJOANNIE BIANCHINIPO BOX 1348BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34133---0 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG C-10169700360007 UELBA ROCIO ROBERSON LAND TRUST 613 PALM VIEW DR #9NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 926180360000 UELSER, WILLIAM J240 PALM RIVER BLVD #C202NAPLES, FL 34110---2112RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG C-20269700480000 UFALVEY, JAMES S & JUDITH A% FALVEY REALTY INC1959 MENTOR AVEPAINESVILLE, OH 44077---1349 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG A-10169700040000 UFELLMAN, ARNOLD L46 CEDAR LAND RDORLEANS, MA 02653---3803COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 126180040003 UFELLMAN, ARNOLD L46 CEDAR LAND RDORLEANS, MA 02653---3803COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 3 OR 1832 PG 141026180120004 UFISHER, JOELLENDOUGLAS MATA168 CORAL VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 45+ BEG AT MOST ELY CNR LOT 46, S 56 DEG W ALG S LOT LI126.06FT TO E R/W CORAL VINE 65221800008 UFORST, MICHAEL737 PALM VIEW DR #E2NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-226280240004 UFOX, WILLIAM H5321 TALLOWOOD WAYNAPLES, FL 34116---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG A-20169700120001 UGAMA 665 LLC1640 NW 31 AVEMIAMI, FL 33125---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-126230200007 UGARRISON, LINDA649 PALM VIEW DR #A1NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-126230040005 UGIL, ELIDA A624 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5712COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1426380320002 UGOMEZ, CLAUDIAPAULA SCHEB142 OAKWOOD CTNAPLES, FL 34110---1146PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK FLOT 2165475880007 UGUNDERMAN, ANDREA709 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-326280440008 UHADZHIEVA, ALBENA & EMIL1362 VOLLKAMER TRAILELG GROVE VILLAG, IL 60007---0 COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 226180080005 UHAHN TR, DOLORES HDOLORES H HAHN TRUST 3468 RABBITS FOOT TRLLEXINGTON, KY 40503---3744PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-20265620800007 UHAJDERLLI, SHPETIM356 ASHBURY WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1126180440001 UHAJDERLLI, SHPETIM & TEREZA 356 ASHBURY WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-626280560001 UHALL, DONNA JULIETTE ANNE241 PALM RIVER BLVD#C-102NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-10265620400009 UHAMILTON, DOUGLAS NPO BOX 122DEALE, MD 20751---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-20265620160006 UHANKEY, CHERYL A11477 US ROUTE 422KITTANNING, PA 16201---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-226230240009 UHAROLD D MILLER TRUST2594 TIMOTHY PLWOOSTER, OH 44691---8413RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG C-20169700440008 UHEFLIN JR EST, JENNINGS B%JENNINGS B HEFLIN III PR JENNINGS B HEFLIN IIIKAREN M HEFLIN 15989 PAVER BARNES RD MARYSVILLE, OH 43040---7085 PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-20165620440001 UHILTON, RONALD D & ELIZABETH R176 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5701PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 8465223340003 UHISERMAN LIVING TRUST1805 S GEORGE MASON DRARLINGTON, VA 22204---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-10265620240007 UHOGUE, JENNIFER KAY281 PALM RIVER BLVD #102NAPLES, FL 34110---2107PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-10265620080005 UHOSSLER, JEFFREY617 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 826180320008 UILIE, CRISTIAN ASORINA PAULA MARTA ILIE 221 PALM RIVER BLVD #D201NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-20165620600003 UINTARAKUNCHIT, PRACHAWIJITRA INTARAKUNCHIT769 PALM VIEW DR #DP8NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-826280640002 UJORIS, FRANK757 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1207COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-526280520009 UJUDITH C LEVIN REV TRUST2869 HIDDEN HOLLOW RDOSHKOSH, WI 54904---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG D-10269700560001 UKAREN STRODE DEC OF LIV TRUST 136 HIGHWAY 1554OWENSBORO, KY 42301---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG B-10169700200002 UKASS, SHAUN W & JENNIFER140 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---1136PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 53765270200002 UKNIGHT, SEAMUS124 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 535A65270080002 UKOLOSKY, PETER CHARLES250 PALM RIVER BLVD #B102NAPLES, FL 34110---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG B-10269700240004 UKOTTENSTETTE, BARBARA P6970 MOUNTAIN BRUSH CIRHIGHLANDS RANCH, CO 80130---5309 COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-1026280720003 UKRIVAC, GREGORY D656 PALM VIEW DR #4NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 426330160005 UKRONIGER, AXELSTEFANIE PIENNAK146 OAKWOOD CTNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK FLOT 20, LESS ESMT DESC IN OR1877 PG 16865475840005 ULAMB, PATRICIA A573 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5717COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1526180600003 ULAMMERS, KAITLIN & BRYAN129 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 75865270920007 ULAPLAYA GOLF CLUB LLC327 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---310123 48 25 PALM RIVER GOLFCOURSE AS DESC IN OR 601 PG 1467 136.9 AC00159120006 ULAPLAYA GOLF CLUB LLC327 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---3101PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 756+ THAT PORTION OF VACATED PALM RIVER BLVD VACATED IN OR 672 PG 40165270840006 ULEBIN, CARLA H682 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5712COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 626330240006 ULESLIE, R MICHAEL & JENNIFER D 336 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1144PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 2965521160008 ULIPPER, PATRICK680 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 526330200004 ULIS, CHRISTINE172 CORAL VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5718PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 46,LESS BEG AT MOST ELY CNR LOT 46, S 56 DEG W ALG S LOT LI126.06FT TO E R/W CORAL VINE 65221840000 ULOPEZ, ALBERTO IJUDITH VILA175 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 38965223400008 ULOPEZ, DIGNA M ESPINOSA705 PALM VIEW DR #DP2NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-226280400006 ULULO, ENTELA725 PALM VIEW DR #D3NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-326280120001 UMANCHESTER, DOUGLAS C & MURIEL 625 PALM VIEW DR # 6NAPLES, FL 34110---5728COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 626180240007 UMARK J ANDREWS & ELYSIA LANDREWS IRREV TRUST3546 KELLIE LNMELBOURNE, KY 41059---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-226280080002 UMASSARD, PAULPAULA HUFF549 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1726180680007 UMATRICCIANO, GREGORY PMARY KATE GLOTH733 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-126280200002 UMILLER, JAY MICHAELTRACY LYNN WILLIAMS114 S HARVEY AVEOAK PARK, IL 60302---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3065521200007 UMILLER, MICHAEL M318 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1144PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3265521280001UMITCHELL, KELSEY S17453 NEWBERRY LNESTERO, FL 33928---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 726380040007 UMOATES FAMILY TRUST458 SHARWOOD DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5726PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK AA PORTION OF LOT 46 DESC IN OR 1352 PG 187165471800052 UMORALES, MELISSA ANNE5563 WOODBERRY CIRCLEMARIETTA, GA 30068---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 226330080004 UMORRISON, JOHN J G & CLAIRE L 182 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---5706PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 1465220560006 UMOSKU, ENO677 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5711COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-426230320000 UNASCIMENTO, JOVITA M601 PALM VIEW DR #12NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1226180480003 UNIELSEN, JEFFREY RJENNIFER K NIELSEN1151 N 400 EASTCHESTERTON, IN 46304---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-426280160003 UOL TRUST753 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-926280680004 UORLANDO, LAURIE ANN169 CROWN DR #11NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1126380200009 UPALM RIVER ACCOMMODATIONS LLC % KRISDAN MANAGEMENT INC 1205 CREEKSIDE PKWY #210NAPLES, FL 34108---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 4 BLK FTHAT PORTION OF BLK F F/K/A RIVER ROYALE CONDO PH 2 AND 3 AS DESC IN OR 847 PGS 286&287 65372280001 UPAUZA TR, PAUL GTHERESA PAUZA TR103 ALEXANDRIA DRVERNON HILLS, IL 60061---2044 COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1426180560004 UPENELOPE J POWARSKI REV TRUST 260 PALM RIVER BLVD UNIT A102NAPLES, FL 34110---1171RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG A-10269700080002 UPERGOLINI, MARK ANTHONY701 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-126280360007 UPERRY, JOHN WMARY J HARRINGTON-PERRY 230 PALM RIVER BLVD APT D202NAPLES, FL 34110---2104RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG D-20269700640002 UPIATT JR, CHARLES L & DIANE R 176 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 1365220520004 UPICA, PHILLIP & KAREN A342 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1144PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 28OR 1540 PG 10365521120006 UPOKARNEY, KIMBERLY ASARAH L POKARNEY171 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5702PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4865221920001 UNotice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA.Petition: PL20190000336/PL20230011318 | Buffer: 500' | Date: 11/15/23 | Site Location: 65372280001POList_500.xls9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 871Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing 2RENDON JR, VIDAL & NORMA L 163 CORAL VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5719 PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 1565220600005 URILEY, MATTHEW D & HANNA M 167 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0 PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4965221960003 URINALDI, JACK D CONNIE COMUNALE 717 PALM VIEW DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34110---0 COCOHATCHEE MANOR A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-126280040000 UROBERSON, GEORGE A & PAOLA 609 PALM VIEW DRIVE #10NAPLES, FL 34110---0 COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO) UNIT 1026180400009 UROBEY, JEFFREY ALLEN DANIEL SETH MINSO 7136 HOCKEY TRL LOS ANGELES, CA 90068---0 COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO) UNIT 726180280009 UROBINSON, CRAIG E & GINGER LEA 452 SHARWOOD DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5726 PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK A LOT 4565471760008 UROCK, KENNETH C DEBRA L ROCK 218 ELM STREET VERSAILLES, KY 40383---0 PALM ROYAL APARTMENTS A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-20265620640005 UROHENA INC 204 BRADSTREET AVEREVERE, MA 02151---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4365221720007 URONALD J CERRITELLI REV TRUST 11668 QUAILVILLAGE WAYNAPLES, FL 34119---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-326280280006 URONCONE JR, ANTHONY & ALICIA A 13595 SCHANG RDEAST AURORA, NY 14052---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-10165620520002 UROYTER, NATALYA6845 SOUTH QUANTOCK WAYAURORA, CO 80016---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-126230360002 URUPE II, JOHN673 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-326230280001 URUPINSKI, KELLY ANN872 COUNTRY CLUB RDBRIDGEWATER, NJ 08807---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 326330120003 USABOVIC, SEMO & AZRA1573 CONEY ISLAND AVENUEBROOKLYN, NY 11230---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-426230480005 USEASONAL INVESTMENTS INC11500 OLIVE BLVD #240ST LOUIS, MO 63141---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-20265620320008 USERAFINA LEONE REV TRUST172 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5701PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 8365223320007 USIMON, MONICA E685 PALM VIEW DRIVE #C2NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-226230400001 USMITH, KEVIN ROBERT171 CROWN DR #10NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1026380160000 USMITH, SUE K653 PALM VIEW DR UNIT A2NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-226230080007 USOUFFIE, ROBERT DAVID260 PALM RIVER BLVD #A 202NAPLES, FL 34110---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG A-20269700160003 USOULE, MARTHA C43 HOMEWOOD CIRYARMOUTH, ME 04096---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-10165620040003 USULLIVAN, THOMAS C221 PALM RIVER BLVD #102NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-10265620560004 UTATONETTI, FELIX D & JOANN E 5150 KNEALE DRLYNDHURST, OH 44124---1227 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG B-20169700280006 UTHOMAS M FUGARD TRUST163 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 5065222000001 UTOSLLUKU, MARINEO661 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-426230160008 UTURK TRUST201 PALM RIVER BLVD APT E101NAPLES, FL 34110---1164PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-10165620680007 UUDO M & EVA M BECKERMANN TRUST156 CORAL VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5719PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 16OR 1062 PG 2465220640007 UURBAN, MARGARETTRACY S BARBER324 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3165521240009 UVAN OS, RON LJENNIFER K KALWITZ201 PALM RIVER BLVD #E201NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-20165620760008 UVECCHIONE, RANDOLPH622 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1326380280003 UW L VANPICKERILL TRUST430 WIEDLOCHER RDANNA, IL 62906---3067PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-10165620360000 UWAHL, STEPHANIE LYNN513 PALM VIEW DR #20NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 2026180800007 UWILKINSON, RAYMOND & MAUREEN 132 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---1136PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 536OR 1381 PG 137465270160003 UWILKS, JERRY745 PALM VIEW DR UNIT E4NAPLES, FL 34110---1207COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-426280320005 UWINTHROP, KIM261 PALM RIVER BLVD #B101NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-10165620200005 UYANKEES UCK LLC15817 DELAPLATA LNNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 526180200005 UZULUAGA, OLGA L597 PALM VIEW DR #13NAPLES, FL 34110---5717COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1326180520002 UCOLLARD, GILLES & VALERIE174 RUE DEBUSSYSIX FOURS 83140 FRANCECOCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1226380240001 FFRANK & RACHEL ZAND REV TRUST 35 BLUE FOREST DRIVETORONTO M3H 4W4 CANADA RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG C-10269700400006 FPAVLOVIC, VOJISLAV & LJILJANA201-472 UPPER KENILWORTH AVEHAMILTON L8T 4G8 CANADACOCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-326230440003 FCOCOHATCHEE CLUB A CONDO MINIUMCOCOHATCHEE CLUB A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 26180000001 65371840002COCOHATCHEE MANOR A COND OMINIUMCOCOHATCHEE MANOR A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 26230000003 65371880004COCOHATCHEE VILLAS A CON DOMINIUMCOCOHATCHEE VILLAS A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 26330000000 65370680001PALM ROYAL APARTMENTS ACONDOMINIUMPALM ROYAL APARTMENTS A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 65620000001 65372320000RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUMRIVER ROYALE APARTMENTS A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 69700000008 65372360002POList_500.xls9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 872Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 1 of 15 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING TRANSCRIPT PETITIONS: PL20230011318 – Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict; and PL20230011319 – Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Rezone SUMMARY: Wayne Arnold, representing Arthrex, introduces the project team and explains that the meeting is being held to discuss two land use applications in Collier County. The applications include a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning of the property. The intent of the project is to demolish existing condominium buildings and replace them with transitional corporate housing for Arthrex employees. The proposed development would increase the density of the property by eight units. The project team presents plans for the development, including a zoning master plan, landscape plan, and development standards. They also discuss the timeline for the project, which includes obtaining permits, working with county staff, and attending public hearings. The team addresses questions and concerns from attendees, including issues related to height, buffers, access to the property, and the impact on neighboring properties. The team emphasizes that public input is important and encourages attendees to participate in the public hearing process. They also provide contact information for further inquiries. TRANSCRIPT: Wayne Arnold: Good evening, everybody. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm here with Grady Minor and Associates representing Arthrex and I'll introduce our project team before we get started. And we have Trent Lewis from Arthrex. He's here in the room. We have Rich Devon which is our legal counsel. Jim Banks is our traf�ic consultant. Jim Carr, I'm not sure where Jim went, but Jim's a civil engineer on the project and Sharon Umpenhour from our �irm is going to help with the recording of the meeting. So, this is a neighborhood information meeting for two land use applications in Collier County and we're required to hold neighborhood information meetings for them, and we're required to record those and create a transcript to provide to the county. So, we're here to talk about two applications. One is a comprehensive plan amendment. So, we're creating our own sub-district for the subject property. And then we're also rezoning the property from RMS-16 zoning to a residential PV. And the intent is to, I'm sure we need to, it's not advancing. Time out while- Richard Yovanovich: While you're �iguring out you want to introduce county staff. Wayne Arnold: Thank you. Appreciate that. So, the subject property is just a little bit over two acres. It currently has condominium buildings on the property. You can see its on Palm River Boulevard and just near Viking Way. Our intent is to demolish those existing condominiums and rebuild what we're calling transitional corporate housing. There's no de�inition for that in the county code, so we're going to be re�ining that de�inition with county staff as we go along. But the intent is to provide corporate housing for employees as they transition to our area, so they'll have a place to reside while they're seeking permanent housing. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 2 of 15 We have to do a couple things to do that. Right now, the property allows a total of about 31 units we're looking to put... or 33 units. I'm sorry. We're looking to put 41 units on it, so we're asking for an eight unit increase in density, but that requires us to modify the comprehensive plan and the zoning for the property. So, those are the two applications that are under consideration, so we could build a total of 41 of these housing units. Future land use map change: we'll be changing the map and writing new subdistrict text. The text is shown here on the screen. I'm not going to go through all of that, but so this is intended to be corporate housing. What we've been talking to staff about is in the event that somehow the corporate housing component of this ends, there would be a commitment to provide those eight additional units as some form of affordable housing, but we don't expect that to occur. But for the foreseeable future, we expect that the demand's going to be there for the corporate housing. Arthrex and others in the community, I'm sure you all know Naples Community Hospital, the school district, Collier County Government, everybody's seeking a way to �ind employee housing, and this is Arthrex's attempt to have employee housing. We'll write the language so that if Arthrex can't ful�ill those 41 units, there might be an opportunity for NCH or some other close employer to also share in the bene�it of those units. We have to create a zoning master plan and the zoning master plan identi�ies the location of the L-shaped building where the number 1 is on that screen and the access to the site will remain from Palm River Boulevard to our south is the drainage canal. Go back to the aerial so everybody can see that. You can see that the canal is on the south side of the property and Palm River boulevards to the west, and then we're surrounded by golf course lakes to the east and another condominium project to the northeast. This is a little bit closer example showing you a little bit more the amenity for the site. They're going to be adding a pool to the south side of the project. What they're proposing is, you can see the parking spaces delineated under the building. That's proposed to be a four-story building over parking. Here's a part of the landscape plan that's been submitted to the county. It's part of the site plan review that Jim Carr and Agnoli Barber & Brundage have been working on, but you can see the landscaping treatments that are proposed. We have some water management features we're adding to the site and then, of course, putting in landscaping to enhance the building that's going to be constructed. As part of the proposed PUD, we have to establish development standards. I'm not going to go through all of those, but this would permit us to have the four-story over parking building, and then create setbacks that allow the building to function properly. In a nutshell, that's where we are. We've started the process and I'll just explain where we are. So, we've submitted both applications to the county. We've received some preliminary feedback from staff. We're in the process of addressing some of their comments. We're holding this Neighborhood Information Meeting. And then, the next step will be for us to continue to work with staff for the next month or so, hopefully, and then get scheduled for a Collier County Planning Commission hearing, and then they'll make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 3 of 15 So that process, hopefully, can wrap up in the next several months for us. It's hard to predict, but hopefully that we can work through the process fairly quickly and easily. So those dates are to be determined for those public hearings. But if you receive notice for this meeting, you'll be receiving notice from Collier County Government. And if you live in the vicinity, you'll see the big four by eight zoning signs go up on the property once hearing dates have been established. Sharon Umpenhour: Last slide. Wayne Arnold: What's that, Sharon? Sorry. Sharon Umpenhour: Click to the last slide. Wayne Arnold: So, this has some other project information on it, if you want to take a screenshot of this or get one of Sharon's business cards for after. We'll update our information on our website as we continue to update and make submittals to Collier County, so everything that the county sees the public can see as well. It'll be here or if you feel more comfortable talking to Laura DeJohn or Parker Klopf, feel free to do that. I'm sure they'll make available their contact information. It's on the bottom of the screen here that Sharon's provided to us. So, with that, what we typically do is open it up if there are some question and answers. Sharon, I'm not sure if we have people that are online on Zoom, but the meeting's being broadcast on Zoom as well as here live. So, we'll take questions and answers from the room and because of the recording that's being taken for Zoom, we need you to be on a microphone. Sharon's got a portable microphone, and we'll get it in your hand. And then, if you can ask your question, then we can respond to it, that would be great. So, if you have a question in the room, just raise your hand and we'll get a microphone to you. Yes, sir. Tim Cannon: Just for the record my name's Tim Cannon. If you pull up a picture, the GIS picture that you had there. Wayne Arnold: Tell me when to stop. Tim Cannon: All right, one... Yeah, right there. Wayne Arnold: Okay. Tim Cannon: There are four white roofs you see just to the east and my unit is across from the pool that stares directly at this property. This property just for historical purposes was to be Phase 3. Our buildings were Phase 1. Across the street was Phase 2. Before he completed this Phase 3 on this property, he changed the plans and put up apartments. They're not condominiums; they're apartments. Since those apartments were occupied, we've had nothing but trouble. They have screened lanais in the back, and they look right down on our pool. We've had to grow 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 4 of 15 some landscape screening and whatnot through there. My question is what is the... I didn't see it in the materials. If it's there, I'm sorry, I just missed it, but what is the maximum height of a building that's allowed right now? Wayne Arnold: So, what we're proposing are buildings that are four stories over parking, we've set that standard at a zone height of 65 feet and an actual height of 75 feet. We're working with the project architect to try to re�ine that. We put those numbers in there as a holding place. They're still trying to work on the building design. Tim Cannon: I saw your proposal that you're 65 feet, but my question is what's the current height that is permitted as it's currently zoned? Wayne Arnold: The RMF-16 zoning allows a permitted height of 50 feet as a zoned height. That's not the maximum height, that's the zoned height. The county measures height in a couple of different ways, but the zoned height of 50 feet could actually be 60 feet, 65 feet, something taller, because it accounts for all roof structure, all elevator shafts, anything that's above the roof line. Tim Cannon: And I saw on the screen there, the minimum square footage of a unit is 650 feet? Wayne Arnold: Yes, that's what we established. It's been a pretty typical number that we've been using for apartments. I don't have a �loor plan to show you. They're still working with MHK Architecture to come up with an actual design for each of the �loors. My gut tells me that most of those units are going to exceed the 650 square feet, but that's the minimum that we've established for a square footage. Tim Cannon: I appreciate the concept of affordable housing. I understand the needs for it, and you get a density bonus of some kind under the current zoning I believe. But as I understand what's being proposed, this isn't going to bene�it �irst responders or teachers or nurses. It's going to bene�it Arthrex employees. Wayne Arnold: That is correct. The �irst interest here is for Arthrex employees. It's a recruiting tool and a way to retain employees for what is one of our area largest and private sector employers because we've all been around long enough to know that the housing issue is real. Whether you're a higher paid professional or a lower paid person that works in our community, it's hard to �ind housing regardless. And if you just moved here, it's hard to know where you want to reside, so this provides that transitional opportunity for their employees. Tim Cannon: Thanks. Wayne Arnold: Thank you. Sharon, I think there's a question over here on this side. Okay, thank you. Speaker 5: You answered it. Wayne Arnold: Okay. Thank you. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 5 of 15 Laura DeJohn: Sorry. Wayne, this is Laura DeJohn on behalf of Collier County. And just to help answer that one question, I went on to look at RMF-16 height and the standard is 75- Wayne Arnold: Oh, I'm sorry. Laura DeJohn: ... feet for RMF-16. Wayne Arnold: You're right. I had that printed out right here. Laura DeJohn: Just wanted to correct that. Wayne Arnold: Thank you for correcting me on that. Sharon, right here. Thank you. Pat Lamb: Hi, my name is Pat Lamb. On one of your samples there it said, "No buffer when it faces Palm View Drive." We're right behind that house. We get spotlights all the time and there's not going to be a buffer there towards the river. We're right across the river. Wayne Arnold: Yes. We're talking to staff about that. The way we interpret the code because it's a canal right of way, that there would be no buffer required. Staff has questioned that, and Jim Carr and his group are looking at the buffering required for that section, or if there's going to be a buffer. You can see on the landscape plan that we prepared, there's a right way. You can see that we've got some of the shrubs and buffering adjacent to the south side of the building. Pat Lamb: Yes. But I can tell you on those buildings right now, right over the garages, they have spotlights that come across into the �irst villas we have, and I just think you should consider a buffer on that. Wayne Arnold: We're certainly looking at that. That's a question that staff had that we are addressing. Thank you. Speaker 8: I'm on the Zoom, can you hear me? I have a question. Wayne Arnold: Yes, we can hear you. Speaker 8: When do you plan to demolish the property? Wayne Arnold: They're talking about when they can get the permits to do that. Right now, I don't know what the status of the permit to do that, but it's the intent to take the buildings down sooner than later. Speaker 8: And out of curiosity, why aren't you keeping the current buildings as is? Because they're pretty nice inside. Wayne Arnold: I haven't been inside the building, but the intent here is obviously they're going to expand the footprint of the building and make it to accommodate 41 units, rather than the dozen or so units that are in the current building. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 6 of 15 Speaker 8: I was just curious. I used to live in the building myself. Wayne Arnold: Okay. Thank you. Patrick Lewins: Yes. Sorry. My name is Patrick Lewins. I'm the superintendent of LaPlaya Golf Course, which abuts the proposed development. I have two questions, �irst being, if you could return to the GIS map, please for me? Wayne Arnold: Sure. Patrick Lewins: Keep going. Right. Well go back to the previous one, sorry, the one that's a little bit closer up. This one. So, you have the bridge there and then directly after the bridge, there is a path along the canal bank to the right, which would be going east. We receive ef�luent irrigation water from the county and the pipe is in that area along with the electric service from the main trunk that's on the road that feeds our pump station, which is if you continue on that gravel road further east out of the frame, which is another 200 yards or so. Because we have a building there with pumps and switch gear and all kinds of stuff in there, would that access be preserved - the access that we currently have to that gravel road which runs along the canal there? Speaker 10: I think that's owned by the county. Wayne Arnold: I think I'd like Jim Carr who's the design engineer to try to respond to that, if you don't mind? Jim Carr: Okay. Wayne Arnold: Jim, you can either come up here or you can talk from there. Jim Carr: I got it. Wayne Arnold: It's not advancing again. Jim Carr: The answer is yes that road will be preserved. There's a 30-foot utility easement that Collier County has the rights to. So, there's an access that you mentioned coming off the road and then there's a dirt path that runs back to the gate. Patrick Lewins: So that we have currently a chain link double gate, which was a four-foot double gate that cuts off where our property begins on the property line. So that gate could remain there, or it could remain, or new fencing may be put up. But however, it turns out, the gate will still be there. Right. But as long as in the event that something would happen to our pumps so we could get in there with a truck and drive. It wouldn't be frequent by any stretch of the imagination. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 7 of 15 Jim Carr: But we don't have the ability to construct anything in that 30-foot easement, so it's going to have to remain �lat. It can be paved, it can be grasped, but those structures will be in there. Patrick Lewins: Well, that was the �irst part of my question, which is that's great. Thank you. And then, if you could go to the proposed building? Yeah, the �inished look. This one right here. We have a cart path which runs between those buildings, so there is a southernmost building. The southernmost and the middle building, we have a cart path that runs through where we currently have an easement through there. We also have a water line, like a main line irrigation pipe, that runs directly under that cart path and connects to the other side of the road to feed those holes that are on that side of the road. So, in this proposed... that is currently a straight line between the entrance, correct, to between Palm River Boulevard and heading east. This does not propose that. So, what are we going to do with our water in this scenario here, is how are we going to get the water from the back part of that property to the front basically through the property into the other side? Jim Carr: So yes, we'll need to run that pipe in the same alignment as the new path, so we'd have to relocate the path and the easement as well as the pipe. It could go back under the new path or just outside of it. Patrick Lewins: And that would be... The main concern there is when that's done, obviously we don't have any water. We have to shut the water off. So, you would, I'm assuming, be very proactive in communicating your timetable when all this stuff would happen? Jim Carr: Yes. The new pipe would have to be put in ahead of time and then connected over when the other one's going to be abandoned. Patrick Lewins: That would really probably have to be before you guys even demolished the buildings because the pipe is in-between the buildings. So, I don't know what your process of demo is. Jim Carr: Yes. We can work out those details that we can work with you as we get to that point. Wayne Arnold: All right. Jim Carr: Thank you for bringing that up. Wayne Arnold: Anybody else have a question or comment? Speaker 11: Thank you. So currently, the Collier County School District has a bus stop there on site right over the bridge, so I'm just curious if that's going to be relocated to a different spot? Wayne Arnold: I'll ask Jim to come back [inaudible 00:20:10]. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 8 of 15 Speaker 11: It's a dangerous spot honestly right now, so it'd be almost helpful if they put it in a different direction, but just curious about that. Jim Carr: The bridge that's there now and the sidewalk will remain right there. And as you come over the bridge, the current driveway is in approximately the same location as the proposed one. So, I'm not sure exactly where they sit. I agree it's probably not a great location. Speaker 11: They just hang out on the driveway area at the moment or just on the grass or so. The bus, it's a little tricky because of the intersection. They used to have to go down Palm River Boulevard back up and come down Viking. Now they stop, pick people up, and then go down Viking. Jim Carr: So, the driveway will be in the same location as the existing [inaudible 00:21:06]. Speaker 11: Will there be anything done with that intersection, or everything will remain the same as far as the lanes and everything? Jim Carr: Yes, everything else will remain the same. It'll just be a little bit larger driveway. Still going to have an intersection. And that's Viking Way on the bottom? Speaker 11: Yeah. And then, where the right of way goes for the golf crossing there, that will just have the stripes on the road or will there be any kind of signal or anything for the carts to cross, or a push button or thing or anything like that? Jim Carr: At this time, we don't have any plan to change it. It will realign a little bit just to point it in the same direction as where the new path will be, but it's at the same location. I know currently there's some old signage out there. I think it'll probably need to be replaced with something newer and more up to code. Speaker 11: And then, last question is, who will be managing the... Or you can have a cam that'll be managing the building and the leasing and all that stuff? Or what's that plan look like? Wayne Arnold: I can let Trent come up and answer that if I don't get it right, but the intent is that these are not really going to be leased to Arthrex employees. Arthrex employees will be allowed to live there at minimum 30 days. Sometimes those get extended to six months. They currently own and manage some other properties for this occurring around the county, but those aren't intended to be lease properties to anybody other than their employees at this point. Thank you. Sharon, question. Speaker 12: Do you know if this is going to be before or after the water renewal project that's going on? I know Grady Minor's involved with too, but are they going to do the work there, then demolish everything and then that whole intersection, which is critical going to be- Wayne Arnold: Jim's been coordinating that. Speaker 12: ... a war zone for the next year? 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 9 of 15 Wayne Arnold: Well, that's a multiphase project, the water reclamation program. Jim Carr: Right. Currently, the county's working up in the north end of Palm River and then they think they'll be here in probably two years, maybe year-and-a-half to two years. So, we should have all our work complete by then, but we're keeping that. Keeping in consideration that they will be coming back, they'll probably tear up the roads and the open areas to put in water and sewer. They'll probably put new gravity sewer in and new water mains in, so we are [inaudible 00:23:42] we should be done, but by the time they get into this area. Yes, ma'am? Speaker 13: That order, the order of them should be recently because they're going to do line section, I think starting in the summer, but my concern is that it's just going to be a non-stop construction at the intersection for three years or so. Wayne Arnold: Yeah, we should be done by the time they get into this area. Yes ma'am. Alicia Andrews: My name's Alicia Andrews. We're just seasonal residents in Palm River and these are very frivolous questions I have compared to the other ones. My �irst is, do you have any pictures of what the proposal is that they'll look like aesthetically from the street or the rear, like the frontage of the buildings? Wayne Arnold: No, we don't unfortunately tonight. MHK Architecture is the design architect working on the project. There were some very basic images shown as part of a site plan with the county, but they're not the �inished elevations for the project, so those are still under development. Alicia Andrews: My second question is totally sel�ish, but it sounds like a lot of people obviously would like things not to change because it's really quiet back there. Will there be any amenities that perhaps some of us in the community might be able to use a playground or a pickleball court or the pool? Wayne Arnold: I think the answer is no. Alicia Andrews: I �igured. Wayne Arnold: It's intended for the Arthrex folks that will be residing in the property. Thank you for the questions. Sharon, there's another question right back there. Joanie: Hi. My name is Joanie and I also reside in the Palm River Apartments where the pool is there or the condos, but my question is... I didn't understand the term of the people that are be staying in the units. It's very short-term or it's permanent housing? Wayne Arnold: It is not permanent housing. We call it transitional corporate housing. I wouldn't say it's a standard industry term, but it's a growing term because a lot of businesses are looking to �ind their own employee housing. Naples Community Hospital, when I �irst moved to town, had multiple apartment buildings around the hospital where they put up doctors, nurses, other visiting people 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 10 of 15 for lengths of time. This is intended to be... I mean the shorter-term rental would be maybe a 30-day stay if somebody comes and needs housing. It can be six months. I know in some cases Trent has told us that working with somebody who might be under construction on a home, and they need even more time just to get the �inal CO. So, this is housing for their folks to have as a place to transition into permanent housing. Joanie: It could be anywhere from individuals to families, the whole gamut? Wayne Arnold: Yes, it could be. Joanie: Thank you. Wayne Arnold: Anybody else - questions? We'll let the lady behind you go �irst. Wendy Klopf: Hi, my name's Wendy Klopf and I'm a resident of Flame Vine Drive. I have a couple questions regarding the bus stop like the other gentlemen. Where is the construction traf�ic going to come in and out? Because if the children or the kids waiting for the bus at six, seven, and eight o'clock in the morning are in that driveway, is the construction traf�ic, the workers or the dump trucks, coming in and out the same driveway? Wayne Arnold: Jim, do you have any idea? Do you want to try to address that? We do have two driveways on the site. I think we can help coordinate during construction activities to not con�lict with school bus stuff. Wendy: And also, in the afternoon at two, three, and four o'clock they'll be dropping off students. So, throughout the day, there'll be at least six buses dropping off students and them walking around those areas. So, for their safety and the employees, if they're leaving, obviously they don't want to hit anybody either. Wayne Arnold: Sure. And we may have students that are residing there as well. Wendy: Yes. My other question is, are these units one-bedroom single SROs? Are they two-bedroom, three bedroom? Wayne Arnold: I think it's going to be a full range of those possibilities, just to accommodate the differences and what people's needs will be. Wendy: And then, my third question, so once you demolish, you're going to have multiple trucks trucking in and out the debris out the village? Wayne Arnold: I'm assuming so. I'm not involved in the demolition process, but typically, it's going to not take that long to demolish the buildings that are there, and then they'll be waiting for other permits to catch up so they can stage new construction on site. Wendy: And then the load of the dump trucks is allowable on all the bridges? Wayne Arnold: It should be. I mean, they're all county roads and they should be constructed to a standard that allows dump trucks and other equipment. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 11 of 15 Wendy: Those are my questions. Thank you. Wayne Arnold: All right. Thank you, Wendy. Paul Pauza: Thank you. My name is Paul Pauza and I live directly across the river from this project. I'm concerned with the height of the building. What's the height of the building right now and what's the height of the new proposed building? Wayne Arnold: I don't know the height of the existing buildings exactly. Paul: I think you should know the height of the building. Wayne Arnold: Well, the answer is that the zoning that's in place is RMF-16 zoning. It allows a height of 75 feet as you heard the county con�irm. It doesn't mean that you couldn't rebuild something there today under that same standard, so 75 feet is the height that's allowed there today. Paul: I know, but I do not have any way of telling how big that building is or how tall the building is, and I think that that's some kind of data that you should have available. Now when I look out my back window, if I'm going to look at a 65-foot structure, this building looks like it's going to be maybe 100 feet from my house, or my property and the existing buildings are maybe 200 feet away from my property. So, I'm going to be looking at... and we don't even have a picture of what it's supposed to look like. Wayne Arnold: No, we do not yet. I'm sorry. And this is part of the due review process? Paul: What's the answer? Wayne Arnold: The answer is we don't have an image of the actual building and I don't know the actual height of the building that's there today, but the zoning would allow the building to be demolished and reconstructed at 75 feet. Paul: Right. Now, how many cars of parking do you have underneath the building? Wayne Arnold: Do you know the answer? Kind of a breakdown? Jim Carr: About 30, 38 or so. Paul: And how many are outside the building? Jim Carr: About 45. Paul: Okay. Wouldn't it be nice if they could take the cars and put a little bit more outside parking, and then lower the height of the building? If it goes to be as high as the hospital, 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 12 of 15 I really don't think I would like to look at a building as high as a hospital. And this is not a hospital, this is something that's supposed to be part of a residential neighborhood. Wayne Arnold: The standard that we've proposed for the building height is consistent with what's allowed under the zoning today. It's actually lower by the zone height than we proposed. Paul: Pardon me, sir? Richard Yovanovich: It's actually lower. Wayne Arnold: It's actually lower by the zone height than we've proposed. Paul Pauza: Pardon me, sir. Richard Yovanovich: Right now, we can go to seventy-�ive feet zone, we're only asking for sixty-�ive feet zone. So, we're asking to reduce the height for what we can build today. Paul Pauza: So, the maximum, the absolute top would be lower than sixty-�ive? Will not be above sixty-�ive plus all the other stuff on top? Wayne Arnold: Hang on sir, hang on. Richard Yovanovich: And right now, we could do seventy-�ive plus. Paul Pauza: Sure. Compared to what it is today. Wayne Arnold: Sir, can we get a microphone because this is bouncing all over. Richard Yovanovich: That's my fault. Wayne Arnold: Can we get a microphone because this is bouncing all over the place on the recording. The answer is, from a building height standpoint, I understand the buildings that are there today are not 65 feet. They're not 75 feet. I don't know their exact height, but the zoning code that's in place today would've allowed whomever developed the property initially or now, if Arthrex hadn't come along and proposed a change, to still build a building 75 feet zone height, which means that building would likely exceed 75 feet total height or an actual height as the county measures it. What we've proposed is a zoned height of 65 feet with an actual height of 75 feet, so our maximum height that we're proposing only achieves the zone height that's allowed today. And just for your information, the hospital is over 100 feet tall. Paul Pauza: For sure? Wayne Arnold: Absolute positive. Paul Pauza: Okay. Well, we might have trouble with the helicopters too if it's too high as they're coming into the hospital. One other thing... No, that's okay, thank you very much. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 13 of 15 Wayne Arnold: No, thank you. Alan Findlay: Hello, Alan Findlay also with LaPlaya Golf Club and this follows on with what Wendy was asking earlier on. The demolition timetable, I heard it was imminent. Wayne Arnold: Jim, do you know any more about that? I know that they've been anxious to try to get in and get the demolition permits. I don't know what the schedule is for demolition, but I think that the intent would be to go ahead and get the site cleared, so construction can commence as soon as all the other permits would be secured. Jim Carr: I think, like you said, dependent on obtaining the permit. I don't know what the exact start date would be, but probably sometime this year. Alan Findlay: We prefer the summertime. Jim Carr: That's what I think is planned. Alan Findlay: And then once everything has been approved, what do you anticipate is the construction timetable, and when would it be? Jim Carr: I don't think I know that answer right now, but it does take several months, maybe even a full year, from beginning to end, the whole project. Alan Findlay: For approvals or the construction? Jim Carr: Well, we have to obtain the approvals, which would likely be around the summertime, and so construction may start as soon as then. Alan Findlay: In the summer? Jim Carr: It's all dependent on when we obtain the zoning and the permits. Alan Findlay: Thank you. Jim Carr: Thanks. Speaker 8: Is this project for sure happening or is there still possibilities? Wayne Arnold: I'm sorry, you broke up there, ma'am. Could you repeat that? Speaker 8: Is this project for sure happening or are there still possibilities? Wayne Arnold: The project is a proposal at this point. We have to go through the public hearing process with Collier County. We don't prejudge, but we hope the County Commission will ultimately approve it, but we still have to go through those public hearings. There'll be public input allowed at those two public hearings. Anybody else? Anything else? I see a lady in the back, Sharon. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 14 of 15 Alicia Andrews: Just so I understand it clearly, it's not happening for sure, but we probably don't stand a chance that it won't happen. Correct? Wayne Arnold: Well, I don't think I would say it that way. Public input is sought for a reason, and you're appointed of�icials with the County Planning Commission and staff and the Board of County Commissioners, they appreciate public input. They work really hard to try to �ind solutions and if there are things that can be accommodated in your request, they'll ask us if we can do those and hopefully, we can. If we can't, we honestly tell you we can't do that like allowing you to use the pool is probably an answer that's a non-starter, but just a hunch. Alicia Andrews: We could show up and- Wayne Arnold: You absolutely can. You'll get notice for public hearings, and you are encouraged to show up. If you can't, you can send an email or write a letter. Speaker 12: This is the only NIM, right? Wayne Arnold: This is the only required Neighborhood Information Meeting, yes. Speaker 12: Is it possible to get when there is a �inal design, or at least a nearer design, to have that rendering shared out or distributed? Or "Here it is today, here's what it looks like today and here's what it's going to look like," so we can see that and maybe these people can see it from their point of view, their house too, so they get a realistic view? Wayne Arnold: Yeah. I think our goal will be by the time we have our Planning Commission Public Hearing, that we'll have some realistic images of what this building is intended to look like. Speaker 12: That'd great. Patrick Lewins: All right. Patrick Lewins again - LaPlaya Golf Club. I heard you say, or somebody say demolition was imminent. Is that the case? Wayne Arnold: I think the intent to get the permit to demolish is underway. Patrick Lewins: My only... or our only concern that we have is with that cart path that we have going through there, there's people driving through there. What accommodations would be made during that process to safely get our people from one side to the other? Wayne Arnold: I would recommend that you all exchange contact information, you and Jim Carr. Patrick Lewins: Okay. Jim Carr: Yeah, we can help coordinate that. The contractor will pull that permit and do the work, but I know what you're saying. You've got a pathway people run through there, you've got push [inaudible 00:37:51] on both sides. You don't want to disturb. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Page 15 of 15 Patrick Lewins: That was the thing with the water too. As soon as you put a track hoe on that car path, that water line is destroyed. So, all that kind of stuff, just not that one day a bulldozer shows up out of the blue and all of a sudden, we're cut off there. Jim Carr: Understood. Wayne Arnold: Any other comments/questions? Was there another question back there, Sharon, or no? No? All right. Well, if not, I appreciate everybody coming out and, like you said, contact information, I'll put it back up again if you... This has the contact information for our �irm where we'll be updating the information and then it's got Parker Klopf's contact information and Laura DeJohn's contact information, so feel free to reach out. Any of us will get you anything that we've submitted to the county and our website will be updated as soon as we resubmit to the county as well. So, thank you everybody. Appreciate you all coming out. 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing PETITIONS:PL20230011318 - PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA); ANDPL20230011319 - PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RPUD REZONE January 10, 2024, Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Project information and a copy of this presentation can be found on our website: GRADYMINOR.COM/PLANNING/ 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 PROJECT TEAM: •Palm River Accommodations, LLC – Applicant •Trent Lewis, MBA, LEED AP, Director of Facilities & Corporate infrastructure – Arthrex, Inc. •Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., Land Use Attorney – Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. •D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Professional Planner – Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. •James A. Carr, P.E., Professional Engineer – Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. •James M. Banks, PE, Traffic Engineer – JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. *Please note, all information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. 2 INTRODUCTION 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 3 LOCATION MAP ZONED RMF-16 ZONED RMF-6 ZONED RMF-16 ZONED RSF-3 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) DESIGNATION: Existing: Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict Proposed: Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict ZONING: Existing: RMF-16 Proposed: Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD PROPOSED REQUEST: •Modify the FLU map to add the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict •Rezone from the RMF-16, Zoning District to the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential PUD •To allow a maximum of 41 multi-family dwelling units. PROJECT INFORMATION 4 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 5 FUTURE LANDUSE MAP - EXISTING 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 6 FUTURE LANDUSE MAP - PROPOSED Proposed Subdistrict Language: 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 7 PROPOSED MASTER PLANSITE SUMMARYTOTAL SITE AREA: 2.06± ACRESRESIDENTIAL: 1.49± ACRES (73%)BUFFERS: 0.17± ACRES (8%)DRAINAGE, UTILITY, ROAD EASEMENTS 0.40± ACRES (19%) RESIDENTIAL: MAXIMUM 41 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITSOPEN SPACE: 2REQUIRED:60%PROVIDED:50%PRESERVE:REQUIRED: 0± ACRES (0 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X 25%)PROVIDED: 0± ACRES DEVIATIONS:1.RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04, TABLE 17, PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS2.RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.07.02.G.1, OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 8 CONCEPTUAL SITE RENDERING 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 9 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE RENDERING 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 10 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 NEXT STEPS •File resubmittal •Hearing Notices mailed to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. •Hearing sign posted on property advertising hearing dates. •HEARING DATES: •CCPC – TBD, 9:00 a.m., Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd floor BCC Chamber, Naples, FL, 34112 •BCC – TBD, 9:00 a.m., Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd floor BCC Chamber, Naples, FL, 34112 11 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 Project information and a copy of this presentation can be found online: WWW.GRADYMINOR.COM/PLANNING Collier County Growth Management Department (GMD) Public Portal: CVPORTAL.COLLIERCOUNTYFL.GOV/CITYVIEWWeb Petition Numbers: PL20230011318 and PL20230011319 CONTACTS: •Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.: Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician; sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or 239.947.1144 •Collier County Staff: Parker Klopf; Parker.Klopf@colliercountyfl.gov, (239) 252-2471 Laura DeJohn; Laura.DeJohn@colliercountyfl.gov, (239) 252-5587 PROJECT DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION 12 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (29745 9.A.5.f Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting 2024-09-03 (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 9.A.5.f Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting 2024-09-03 (29745 : PL20230011318-Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict (GMPA)) 09/20/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.6 Doc ID: 29783 Item Summary: PL20230011319 - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD - east side of Palm River Boulevard at Viking Way - An Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas Map or Maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Residential Multi-family-16 Zoning District (RMF-16) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD, to allow up to 41 multi-family rental units on 2.06+/- acres of property in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] (Companion to GMPA-PL20230011318 Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict) Meeting Date: 09/20/2024 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Laura DeJohn 08/31/2024 8:50 AM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 08/31/2024 8:50 AM Approved By: Review: Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/05/2024 4:24 PM Unknown Jaime Cook GMCDD Reviewer Completed 09/09/2024 3:39 PM Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch GMD Approver Completed 09/09/2024 3:59 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/09/2024 4:54 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Completed 09/10/2024 7:32 AM Growth Management Community Development Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 09/13/2024 3:06 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 09/20/2024 9:00 AM 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 902 PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 1 of 18 13 September 2024 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20230011319; PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RPUD (Companion to GMPA-PL20230011318) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Palm River Accommodations LLC 1265 Creekside Pkwy, Ste 210 Naples, FL 34108 Agents: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission consider rezoning +2.06 acres from Residential Multifamily–16 (RMF-16) Zoning District to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for the Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD to allow for the development of up to 41 multifamily rental units, with commitment that eight rental units will be restricted to households whose incomes are less than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County for 30 years should the property no longer be used entirely for Transitional Corporate Housing. A companion Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendment is requested (GMPA- PL20230011318) to remove the property from the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and designate it as Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District. A Utility Easement Vacation (VAC-PL20240002369) request is also in process with final determination by the BCC. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 2 of 18 13 September 2024 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property is located approximately 0.5 miles north of the intersection of Palm River Boulevard and Immokalee Road, on the east side of Palm River Boulevard, within Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map below) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The site is located approximately 0.5 miles north of the intersection of Palm River Boulevard and Immokalee Road on the east side of Palm River Boulevard. The site is 2.06+ acres, identified as Parcel No. 65372280001, within the Palm River Estates (Unit 4) subdivision. The site is developed with 12 residential units in three buildings constructed in 1989. The existing building addresses are 208, 210, and 212 Palm River Boulevard. The maximum number of units allowed on the site per the current Residential Multifamily–16 (RMF- 16) zoning district is 16 units per acre, which equates to 33 units. The petitioner seeks eight more units than currently allowed, which requires the companion GMP Amendment. The proposed rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) is intended to allow redevelopment of the site with up to 41 dwelling units, which calculates to a density of +19.9 units 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 3 of 18 13 September 2024 per acre. The proposed maximum building height is 65 feet (zoned) and 75 feet (actual) for a five- story multifamily apartment building with parking and office space on Level 1 and apartments on Levels 2 through 5. The maximum zoned height in the RMF-16 district is 75 feet, and the requested height conforms to this maximum. Because the requested density exceeds the allowable density per the GMP, a companion GMP Amendment is requested (GMPA-PL20230011318) to establish the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map, with a text change to the Future Land Use Element to allow the proposed density of +19.9 units per acre on the site. The PUD Master Plan depicts the two existing access points along Palm River Boulevard will remain. School children currently use a school bus stop near the southern driveway into the site (opposite Viking Way), and this is proposed to remain. A golf cart path currently traverses the middle of the site in an easement, and the path and easement are proposed to be relocated to conform to the new building placement. A County Utility Easement is also proposed to be vacated subject to BCC approval (VAC-PL20240002369). The petitioner commits to providing some affordable housing should the property no longer be used entirely for Transitional Corporate Housing. For purposes of this PUD, the petitioner defines Transitional Corporate Housing as the temporary rental for no less than 30 days of a furnished apartment or condominium to employees working in Collier County for companies located in Collier County. Should the property no longer be used entirely for Transitional Corporate Housing, the petitioner commits eight dwelling units to be income restricted and rented to individuals or families having incomes at or below the 100% Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date the property ceases to be utilized for Transitional Corporate Housing, and the managing entity will notify the county manager or designee in writing. Two deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) are proposed: 1. To allow no additional parking for on-site recreation facilities; and 2. To allow a reduction in required open space from 60% to 50% of the site. For additional information, see the deviations discussion section of this staff report on page 16. In addition to the companion GMPA-PL20230011318 and Utility Easement Vacation (VAC- PL20240002369), a Site Development Plan (SDP-PL20230015865), Demolition Permit (PRDM20240834775), and Building Permit (PRMFH20240832690) are also in process for this project. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 4 of 18 13 September 2024 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities for properties surrounding the proposed Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD, which is currently occupied by three residential buildings with a zoning designation of RMF-16. North: River Royale Condo Phase 1, consisting of 16 units, zoned RMF-16. East: Palm River Golf Course, zoned Golf Course (GC). South: Beyond the water is Cocohatchee Club, a condominium consisting of 20 units, zoned RMF-6. West: Beyond Palm River Blvd is Palm Royal Apartments, a condominium, zoned RMF-16 and single family dwellings, zoned RSF-3. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 5 of 18 13 September 2024 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The 2.06+/- acre subject site has a Future Land Use designation of Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. A Future Land Use Map change is also being requested in the companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230011318) to remove it from the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and designate it as Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District. The proposed density is 19.9 dwelling units per acre (41 units/2.06+/- acres), which exceeds the allowable density. As such, this PUD petition may only be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP if the companion GMPA (PL20230011318) is approved and goes into effect and the uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s November 1, 2023 TIS and the PUD Document for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). 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 developmen t, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 6 of 18 13 September 2024 Staff finding: According to the TIS and PUD document, the proposed development is requesting 41 multifamily residential units. There are currently 12 multifamily units constructed on the parcel. The TIS for this request indicates that the proposed development will generate +/- 16 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent road network. This represents a net increase of +/- 10 PM peak hour trips over the existing +/- 6 PM peak hour trips generated by this development. The number of new trips generated represents a de minimis impact (less than 1%) on the adjacent road network. Because this development has a de minimis impact on the adjacent roadways, the request can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): The environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site is 2.06+ acres and has been cleared; no preservation is required. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval , approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition cannot be approved until the companion GMPA is adopted and goes into effect with an effective date linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below under the heading “Zoning Services Analysis.” Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The property has been developed and maintained clear of native vegetation required to be preserved. No listed animal species were observed on the property. The Master Plan does not show a preserve because no minimum preservation is required. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Landscape Review: The buffers labeled on the PUD Master Plan are consistent with the LDC. Utility Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the North Collier wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). The project already receives CCWSD water and wastewater services. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. 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. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 7 of 18 13 September 2024 Housing Policy & Economic Development Review: The petitioner proposes to build 41 residential units on 2.06 acres at a density of 19.9 units per acre. To achieve the requested density, approval of the accompanying Growth Management Plan Amendment is required. It is Board of County Commissioners policy to require residential density increases through growth management plan amendments to provide a minimum of 30% affordable housing (with 15% addressing the housing needs of households at the 80% AMI level and 15% addressing the housing needs of households at the 100% AMI level). Staff recognizes that this site is currently zoned RMF-16, upon which 33 residential units could be constructed today. Therefore, staff recommends that as a condition of approval, 30% (12 of the 41) of the residential units be restricted to households up to and including the 100% AMI level. These units should be restricted for 30 years from the time of the development. For reference, the income and rent limits for apartment units at the 100% AMI levels are as follows… This will broaden the spectrum of employees being accommodated in the transitional housing by setting aside twelve (12) units for those earning up to and including 100% AMI. Zoning Services Review: Zoning Division staff has evaluated the proposed uses related to intensity and compatibility. The density of the proposed development is 19.9 units per acre (41 units on 2.06 acres), which exceeds the allowable density of 16 units per acre and can only be achieved if the companion GMP Amendment (PL20230011318) is approved. The subject site lies in a unique location of the larger Palm River subdivision because this location is where three properties are subject to the highest density designation of RMF-16 zoning district in the Palm River neighborhood. No other planned unit developments are in the vicinity. The neighborhood is primarily zoned RSF-3 Single Family and GC-Golf Course, with RMF-6 zoning nearby to the south and RMF-12 zoning toward Immokalee Road. The proposed five-story multifamily residential development is more intense than the surrounding development pattern. The two-story condominium complex to the north, River Royale Apartments, was established in 1979 and constructed at a density of ±6 units per acre (16 units on 2.67 acres). To the west across Palm River Boulevard is Palm Royal Apartments, a two-story condominium complex established in 1978, constructed at a density of ±8.5 units per acre (20 units 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 8 of 18 13 September 2024 on 2.34 acres). Single family residential dwellings zoned RSF-3 are located to the west across Palm River Boulevard. Duplex and two-story quadplex dwellings are to the south, zoned RMF-6. To the southeast toward Immokalee Road are two-story and three-story condominium developments zoned RMF-12. Although the proposed development is more intense than the existing uses in the vicinity, the proposed multifamily use and proposed height are consistent with the currently applicable zoning district. The RMF-16 zoning district allows for a density of up to 16 units per acre and a zoned height of up to 75 feet. The proposed PUD will have a gross density of 19.9 per acre, which results in 8 more dwelling units than allowed by current zoning. The petitioner proposes a maximum zoned building height of 65 feet and a maximum actual height of 75 feet; the building is proposed as a five-story multifamily apartment building with parking and office space on Level 1 and apartments on Levels 2 through 5. The petitioner’s justification for requested Deviation #1 suggests that recreational amenities may be located at the rooftop level. Staff recommends that amenities not be located on the rooftop to avoid the imposition of rooftop activities and associated noise on the surrounding residential neighborhood. The RMF-16 minimum setbacks are 50% the height of the building for the front yard (but not less than 30 feet), 50% the height of the building for the side yard (but not less than 15 feet), and 50% the height of the building for the rear yard (but not less than 30 feet). Per the Development Standards Table I in Exhibit B of the draft Ordinance (Attachment A), the proposed minimum front yard setback is 30 feet (the conventional LDC requirement is 50% of 65 feet or 32.5 feet), minimum side yard is 15 feet (the conventional LDC requirement would be 32.5 feet), and minimum rear yard is 15 feet (the conventional LDC requirement would be 32.5 feet). The petitioner defines Transitional Corporate Housing as “the temporary rental for no less than 30 days of a furnished apartment or condominium to employees working in Collier County for companies located in Collier County.” Should the property no longer be used entirely for Transitional Corporate Housing, a commitment is included in Exhibit F of the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) to provide eight income restricted rental units (19.5% of total units) for individuals or families with incomes at or below the 100% Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County for 30 years. Staff recommends that the petitioner provide at least 30% of the transitional corporate housing units for those earning up to and including 100% AMI. The current designation of the site as RMF-16 entitles higher density and taller structures than most of the surrounding neighborhood. The petitioner seeks to increase the density further through a GMP Amendment and PUD rezoning to allow 19.9 units per acre. This alters the mix of zoning that is established within the neighborhood. The petitioner seeks a deviation to allow 50% of the total area of the site as open space, which is less than the required minimum 60% open space that must be provided for residential only PUDs per LDC Section 4.07.02 G.1. The petitioner indicates that the size of the parcel and proposed scale of the building limits the amount of usable open space that can be provided on-site, and that meeting the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed height. The minimum 60% open space requirement could be achieved with a smaller building footprint or a reduction in number of units and corresponding parking spaces. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 9 of 18 13 September 2024 The increased density could be designed compatibly in the context of the neighborhood if developed in adherence to the RMF-16 development standards governing height and setbacks. Staff recommends the project maintain the minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks per the LDC standards for the RMF-16 district, which is 50% of zoned building height, or 32.5 feet. The petitioner’s justification for requested Deviation #1 suggests that recreational amenities may be located at the rooftop level. Staff also recommends that amenities not be located on the rooftop to avoid the imposition of rooftop activities and associated noise on the surrounding residential neighborhood. CONCURRENT LANUD USE APPLICATIONS: In addition to the companion GMPA-PL20230011318 and Utility Easement Vacation (VAC- PL20240002369), a Site Development Plan (SDP-PL20230015865), Demolition Permit (PRDM20240834775), and Building Permit (PRMFH20240832690) are also in process for this project. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08.” 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The 2.06+/- acre project with 41 dwelling units for Transitional Corporate Housing at a density of 19.9 dwelling units per acre is higher density than the existing low-rise single family and multifamily residential development pattern in the vicinity. The current designation of the site as RMF-16 entitles higher density and taller structures than most of the surrounding neighborhood. The petitioner seeks to increase the density further through a GMP Amendment and PUD rezoning to allow 19.9 units per acre. This alters the mix of zoning established within the neighborhood. The increased density could be designed compatibly in the context of the neighborhood if developed in adherence to the RMF-16 development standards governing height and setbacks. Staff recommends the project maintain the minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks per the LDC standards for the RMF-16 district, which is 50% of zoned building height, or 32.5 feet. Staff also recommends that amenities not be located on the rooftop to avoid the imposition of rooftop activities and associated noise on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Transportation Planning staff determined the access points and de minimis level of traffic are acceptable, and utilities are available to the site. The project already receives CCWSD water and wastewater services. There are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the project. A sanitary sewer utility easement is proposed to be vacated subject to BCC approval (VAC-PL20240002369). Any 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 10 of 18 13 September 2024 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, contracts, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and demonstrate unified control. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the [GMP]. Comprehensive Planning staff finds that the proposed PUD will only be consistent with the GMP upon adoption of the companion GMP Amendment (GMP PL20230011318) to designate the site as the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The buffers labeled on the PUD Master Plan are consistent with the LDC. A 15-foot wide Type B buffer is proposed on the southeastern project boundary facing the water and Cocohatchee Club, a condominium consisting of 20 units zoned RMF-6. A 10-foot-wide Type D buffer is proposed on the west boundary abutting Palm River Boulevard; a 10-foot- wide Type A buffer is proposed on the north and northeast boundary adjacent to River Royale Condo zoned RMF-16; and no buffer is proposed on the east boundary abutting the golf course. The current designation of the site as RMF-16 entitles higher density and taller structures than most of the surrounding neighborhood. The petitioner seeks to increase the density further through a GMP Amendment and PUD rezoning to allow 19.9 units per acre. This alters the mix of zoning that is established within the neighborhood. The increased density could be designed compatibly in the context of the neighborhood if developed in adherence to the RMF-16 development standards governing height and setbacks. Staff recommends the project maintain the minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks per the LDC standards for the RMF-16 district, which is 50% of zoned building height, or 32.5 feet. Staff also recommends that amenities not be located on the rooftop to avoid the imposition of rooftop activities and associated noise on the surrounding residential neighborhood. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 11 of 18 13 September 2024 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The petitioner seeks a deviation to allow 50% of the total area of the site as open space, which is less than the required minimum 60% open space that must be provided for residential only PUDs per LDC Section 4.07.02 G.1. The petitioner indicates that the size of the parcel and proposed scale of the building limits the amount of usable open space that can be provided onsite, and that meeting the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed height. The minimum 60% open space requirement could be achieved with a smaller building footprint or a reduction in number of units and corresponding parking spaces. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure will continue to be sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts are addressed through the pending Site Development Plan review process (SDP-PL20230015865). The project already receives CCWSD water and wastewater services. 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. The proposed development must comply with all applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The subject property is proposed to accommodate 41 dwelling units. The area has adequate infrastructure to accommodate this project. Expansion is not feasible beyond the proposed PUD perimeter because the property is bounded by a waterway, roadway, and existing development. 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. Two deviations are requested from the LDC in connection with this request to rezone to RPUD. See the deviations section of the staff report beginning on page 16. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 12 of 18 13 September 2024 REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable.” 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff finds that the proposed PUD will only be consistent with the GMP upon adoption of the companion GMP Amendment (GMP PL20230011318) to designate the site as the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District. 2. The existing land use pattern. The surrounding land uses are described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section on page 4 of this staff report. The proposed Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD is located in an urbanized portion of the County. The current designation of the site as RMF-16 entitles higher density and taller structures than most of the surrounding neighborhood. The petitioner seeks to increase the density further through a GMP Amendment and PUD rezoning to allow 19.9 units per acre. This alters the mix of zoning established within the neighborhood. The increased density could be designed compatibly in the context of the neighborhood if developed in adherence to the RMF-16 development standards governing height and setbacks. Staff recommends the project maintain the minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks per the LDC standards for the RMF-16 district, which is 50% of zoned building height, or 32.5 feet. Staff also recommends that amenities not be located on the rooftop to avoid the imposition of rooftop activities and associated noise on the surrounding residential neighborhood. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. There are no other planned developments in the immediate vicinity. The closest PUDs are located approximately 0.5 miles away on the south side of Immokalee Road. Other non- residential PUDs in the area include the BRB Development CPUD and the Piper Blvd. Medical Office Center PUD located north of Piper Boulevard on Cypress Way East which are approximately one mile away. However, the proposed RPUD is not unrelated to adjacent districts because multifamily homes are in the immediate vicinity, and the current designation of the site as RMF-16 already entitles the site for higher density and taller structures in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The boundary of the existing RMF-16 district and surrounding districts are logically drawn following the boundary of parcels/tracts. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 13 of 18 13 September 2024 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary but is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. The petitioner believes the rezoning is necessary to accommodate the construction of a facility that will meet a market need to supply housing to newly hired individuals moving to the area. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed rezoning is not likely to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Transportation Planning staff found this development has a de minimis impact on the adjacent roadways. 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 construc tion phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure will continue to have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts are addressed through the pending Site Development Plan review process (SDP-PL20230015865). 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 rezoning is not anticipated to create adverse drainage impacts in the area; provided stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project are addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria through the pending Site Development Plan review process (SDP-PL20230015865). 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this RPUD will reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Property value is affected by many factors. It is driven by market conditions and is , generally, a subjective determination. The investment to redevelop buildings that were constructed in 1989 is likely to increase the valuation of the subject property, which is likely to have a positive effect on the valuation of surrounding properties. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 14 of 18 13 September 2024 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed rezone request from RMF-16 to RPUD to allow for 41 residential units is not likely to deter development activity or improvement of surrounding properties 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 approval of the companion GMP Amendment (GMPA-PL20230011318), then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions 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 subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed density cannot be achieved without rezoning to RPUD and amending the GMP. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The current designation of the site as RMF-16 entitles higher density and taller structures than most of the surrounding neighborhood. The petitioner seeks to increase the density further through a GMP Amendment and PUD rezoning to allow 19.9 units per acre. This alters the mix of zoning that is established within the neighborhood. The total number of units requested is eight dwelling units more than currently permitted. The petitioner seeks a deviation to allow 50% of the total area of the site as open space, which is less than the required minimum 60% open space that must be provided for residential only PUDs per LDC Section 4.07.02 G.1. The petitioner indicates that the size of the parcel and proposed scale of the building limits the amount of usable open space that can be provided onsite, and that meeting the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed height. The minimum 60% open space requirement could be achieved with a smaller building footprint or a reduction in number of units and corresponding parking spaces. The increased density could be designed compatibly in the context of the neighborhood if developed in adherence to the RMF-16 development standards governing height and setbacks. Staff recommends the project maintain the minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks per the LDC standards for the RMF-16 district, which is 50% of zoned building height, or 32.5 feet. Staff also recommends that amenities not be located on the rooftop to avoid the imposition of rooftop activities and associated noise on the surrounding residential neighborhood. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 15 of 18 13 September 2024 15. Is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The proposed multifamily use is allowed on the subject site per the current RMF-16 zoning. County policies typically allow for the requested density of 19.9 units per acre in Activity Centers or through the Affordable Housing Density bonus program. The petitioner is seeking to allow the proposed use and density in this location by requesting a companion amendment to the GMP to create a site-specific Future Land Use designation allowing up to 19.9 units per acre on this site. 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. Site alteration is required for the proposed project. The PUD Master Plan depicts the two existing access points along Palm River Boulevard will remain. School children currently use a school bus stop near the southern driveway into the site (opposite Viking Way), and this is proposed to remain. A golf cart path currently traverses the middle of the site in an easement, and the path and easement are proposed to be relocated to conform to the new building placement. A sanitary sewer utility easement is also proposed to be vacated subject to BCC approval (VAC-PL20240002369). A Site Development Plan (SDP- PL20230015865), Demolition Permit (PRDM20240834775), and Building Permit (PRMFH20240832690) are also in process for this project. 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 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. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in protecting public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank.] 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 16 of 18 13 September 2024 DEVIATION DISCUSSION The petitioner seeks two deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. Proposed Deviation # 1: (Parking Space requirements) Relief from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multifamily dwellings, which requires that all units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1-bedroom unit, and 1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where sma ll-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities may be computed at 50 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities. To instead require no additional parking for the on-site recreation facilities to be provided. Petitioner’s Justification: The single building site has been designed in a manner that places all units in close proximity to the project amenity area; if located outdoors and if located on the building rooftop, all 41 units would have access to the amenity within the building. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL, finding in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community” and in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” The site design will be compact so that residents will not be required to traverse the site by vehicle to access the on-site amenities. Staff recommends that amenities not be located on the rooftop to avoid the imposition of rooftop activities and associated noise on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Proposed Deviation # 2: (Open Space) Seeks relief from LDC Section 4.07.02.G.1, Open space requirements, which requires at least 60 percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space within PUD districts composed entirely of residential dwelling units and accessory uses, to instead allow 50 percent of the gross area be devoted to usable open space. Petitioner’s Justification: The 50% open space standard is justified. The Palm River Corporate Housing project represents redevelopment of a residential project on 2.06+/- acres. The applicant is proposing a project that has comparable building heights to the adjacent condominiums. Due to the size of the parcel, meeting the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed height. A taller building, having less lot coverage would be necessary to meet the 60% open space requirement. The proposed building height and building scale are in keeping with the 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 17 of 18 13 September 2024 adjacent development. The County has recently provided data indicating that over 50,000 people per day commute to work from outside Collier County. The Chamber of Commerce has indicated that housing affordability is the number one public policy priority. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL subject to the condition that the petitioner provide at least 30% of the transitional corporate housing units for those earning up to and including 100% AMI, finding in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community” and in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” The minimum 60% open space requirement could be achieved with a smaller building footprint or a reduction in number of units and corresponding parking spaces. The petitioner suggests that housing affordability is such a priority that the requested relief is warranted to achieve County goals. However, the petitioner’s commitment to affordability is only implemented if the project no longer serves its primary purpose of transitional corporate housing, so the affordability component may never transpire per the proposed terms. To balance the need for relief to meet the development goals while contributing to the achievement of County goals, this deviation is only supported by staff if the petitioner provides at least 30% of the transitional corporate housing units for those earning up to and including 100% AMI. This aligns with previous Board of County Commissioner policy. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The petitioner conducted a NIM on Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at Arthrex offices located at 1 Arthrex Way. The meeting was also broadcast via ZOOM. The meeting began at 5:30 p.m. Agent Wayne Arnold presented information about the proposed GMPA and PUD rezoning, noting the intent of the project is to demolish existing buildings and replace them with transitional corporate housing for Arthrex employees. Concerns were raised about light potentially shining into the first floor of the villas across the creek and whether any buffering would address that issue. Discussion followed about the golf cart path and easement that transects the site and whether the utility easement for the golf course’s irrigation and electric equipment would be maintained. Attendees also asked about location and safety of the school bus stop at the project’s driveway. Concerns were expressed about the potential height of the building compared to what is currently on site and how the project would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. See Attachment C for the NIM documentation. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW This project does not require an 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. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PUDZ-PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Page 18 of 18 13 September 2024 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s office on August 30, 2024. This staff report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s office on August 30, 2024. The Affordable Housing provisions of Exhibit F, Section 5 of the PUD are not likely to ever be triggered because this rental project will operate like any other traditional rental property except that it will not rent to people working in Lee County or people who are not working (including retirees). As proposed, Transitional Corporate Housing is not limited to employees of Arthrex or any targeted business industry. –DDP RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ- PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to approval of the companion GMP Amendment and with an effective date linked to the effective date of the GMP Amendment and subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise Exhibit F, List of Development Commitments, to provide at least 30% of the of the transitional corporate housing units for those earning up to and including 100% AMI. The 30% requirement would result in twelve (12) units set aside for those earning up to and including 100% AMI. 2. Revise Exhibit B, List of Development Standards, to maintain the minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks per the LDC standards for the RMF-16 district, which is 50% of zoned building height, or 32.5 feet. 3. Revise Exhibit F, List of Development Commitments, to state that amenities will not be located on the rooftop to avoid the imposition of rooftop activities and associated noise on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance B. Application/Backup Materials C. NIM Documentation D. Correspondence with public and School District 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Palm River Corp Hous PUDZ Staff Report DDP (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) WHEREAS, D. Wayne Amold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Palm River Accommodations LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to change the zoning classification ofthe herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COLTNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COL]NTY, FLORIDA, thAt: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from Residential Multi- Family-l6 Zoning District (RMF-16) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a 2.06+ acre proj ect to be known as Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD, to allow up to 41 mutti-family rental units, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in [23-CPS-02408/ l 877 3821 t) 64 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD PL2023001 t319 711012024 Page i of2 cAo ORDINANCE NO.202,1- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2OO4-.II, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COTINTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED ARXA 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 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-I6 ZONING DISTRICT (RMF-I6) TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS PALM RIVER coRPoRATE HOUSING RPUD, TO ALLOW UP TO 41 MULTI.FAMILY Rf,NTAL UNITS, ON 2.06+ ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALM RIVER BOULEVARD AT VIKING WAY, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTTVE DATE. IPL2023001 l3l9l 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION T\\'O: 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. 2024- becomes effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2024. ATTES'f : CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK B)':By: , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Derek D. Perry Assistant County Attomey Attachments: Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B - Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Concept Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - Deviations Exhibit F - Development Commitments [23-CPS-02408/ I 871 382/ 1 ) 64 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD P12023001 t3l9 1 l10/2024 BOARD OF COLINTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Chris Hall, Chairman Page 2 of 2 cllg 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Regulations for development of this RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise a pplicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 41 multi-family rental dwelling units (at a density of 19.9+/- units per acre) shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or structure, or part thereot shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or ln part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAT: A. Principa I Uses: 1. Multi-family Rental Dwelling Units 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 by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Carports and garages; and 2. Community administrative facilities and recreationalfacilities intended to serve residents and guests; and 3. Construction offices (during active construction only); and 4. Leasing offices; and 5. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas; and 6. Storage sheds; and 7. Swimming pools and spas for residents and their guests; and 8. Water management facilities to serve the project, such as lakes. qo Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD P 12023001 l319 June 21,2021 EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: Page I of 9 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MUTTI-FAMtLY Minimum Floor Area per unit 650 SF Minimum Lot Area N/A Minimum Lot Width Minimum Lot Depth Front Ya rd 30 feet Side Yard 15 feet Rear Yard 15 feet Maximum Building Height *2 Zoned Adual 55 feet 75 feet Minimum Setbacks Front Yard 15 feet Side Yard 5PS Rear Yard sPs Maximum Building Height Zoned Actual 25 feet 30 feet SPS - Same as Principal Structure *1 - Communlty structures such as guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, walls, columns, decorative architectural features, streetscape, passive parks and access controlstructures shall have no required internalsetback, and are permitted throughout the PUD; however, such structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking into the road right-of-way or create site distance issues for motorists and pedestrians. *2 - Height is measured per LDc definition for zoned and actual height. Note: nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in Exhibit E, list of deviations. o 70 Palu River Corporate Housing RPUD P L2023001l319 June 2J, 2021 Page 2 of9 Minimum Setbacks ACCESSORY STRUCTURES +1 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 25'FPL EASEMENT o.R. 659 PC 1616 ZONEDT RMF-16 USE: MULTI.FAMILYRESIDENTIAL DUMPSTER I I 1O' WIDE TYPE'A'LANDSCAPE BUFFER 1O' WIDE TYPE 'A' LAN DSCAPE BUFFER 1O' WIDE TYPE'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER COLF CART PATH (EASEMENT WIDTH AND LOCATION TBD AT TIME OF SDP] ZONED: GC USE: GOLF COURSE NO BUFFER REQUIRED 1o- VIKINC WAY .Z 15' WIDE TY ,2 LANDSCAPE B FER o .o3 Eb =eLEGEND WATER MANAGEMENT \ PAVEMENT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DEVIATION ACCESS 5n il0 SCALE: 1" = '100' 1 ttt # @ ( illrdl \ lirto r 0 cd![rrorld llq{r6 r 1 hu tr+ a.Fu.dr 3i 3i Cllll EDglm.N . Lntrd SuntrorJ ' nann.i, PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSINC RPUD EXHrEIT C MAS-TER PLAN REMSEO APRIL 4. 2024 o I , \ ZONED: RMF-16 USE: MULTI.FAMILYRESIDENTIAL .D' ..' t I I 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 2.061 ACRES RESIDENTIAL: BUFFERS: DRAINAGE, UTILITY, ROAD EASEMENTS 1.491 ACRES (73%l 0.171 ACRES [B%) 0.401 ACRES (1.9oloJ RESIDENTIAL: MAXIMUM 41 MULTI.FAMILY DWELLING UNITS OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 60%o PROVIDED: 50% PRESERVE: REQUIRED: 0t ACRES (0 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X25o/o) PROVIDED: 01 ACRES DEVIATIONS: RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05,04, TABLE 17, PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS RELTEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.07.02.G.r, OPEN SpACE REQUTREMENTS NOTES 1 THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ) 1 2 @ GradyNlinor {llvll Uheihcffs . l,and SuEoors . I,lannos .u' E srd(B. rbna rr9r . L.nd&tp. \rchllf,.td fon Mtw 239 09o l33o PALM RTVER CORPORATE HOUS|NG RPUD EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN NOTES REVISED APRIL 4,2024 o 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PARCEL NO. 1 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK F, RUN NORTH 30 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK F AND ITS NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION FOR 190.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTINUE NORTH 30 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST FOR 1.09.36 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 10 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST FOR 87.89 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 63 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 31 SECONDS WEST FOR 153.]-9 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PALM RIVER BOULEVARD, AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 672, AT PAGE 401, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN SOUTH 0 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EASTALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LIN E FOR 259.58 FEETTO THE CENTERLINE OF A GOLF CART EASEMENT; THENCE RUN SOUTH 79 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE FOR 59.14 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN EASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 2OO.OO FEET (CHORD DISTANCE 125.84 FEEI CHORD BEARING NORTH 82 DEGREES 34 MINUTE5 27 SECONDS EAST) FOR 128.02 FEETTOTHE POINTOF BEGINNING. AND PARCEL NO. 2 A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID PARCEL BEING A PART OF BLOCK F, PALM RIVER ESTATES, UNIT NO. 4, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, AT PAGE 70 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FIORIDA, FORMERLY DESCRIBED AS RIVER ROYALE, PHASE 3, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 847, P AGE 287, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEG IN N ING ATTHE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK F, RUN NORTH O DEGREES 33 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PALM RIVER BOULEVARD, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF PALM RIVER ESTATES, UNIT NO. 2, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, AI PAGE 96, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; FOR 216.19 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY LIN E OF SAID PALM RIVER BOULEVARD, AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 672, AT PAGE 401, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS, FOR Palm River Corporate Howing RPUD PL2023001 I 3 I 9 June 21,2021 Page 5 of9 o'{c EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID PARCEL BEING A PART OF BLOCK F, PALM RIVER ESTATES UNIT NO- 4, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, AT PAGE 70, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNry, FLORIDA, FORMERLY DESCRIBED AS RIVER ROYALE, PHASE 2, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 847, PAGE 286, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 22.35 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 0 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID PALM RIVER BOULEVARD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK672, PAGE 401, FOR 110.50 FEETTO THE CENTERLINE OF A GOLF CART EASEMENT; THENCE RUN SOUTH 79 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE FOR 59.14 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN EASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 2OO.OO FEET (CHORD DISTANCE 125.84 FEEI CHORD BEARING NORTH 82 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST) FOR 128.02 FEETTO THE EASTERLY tlNE OF SAID BLOCK F; THENCE RUN SOUTH 30 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE FOR 190.47 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK F; THENCE RUN SOUTH 56 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK F FOR 304.49 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 2.06 ACRES, MORE OR LESS Polm River Corporate Housing RPUD PL2023001l3l9 June 2J.2021 Page 6 of9 o.{, 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS Deviation #1: Relief from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi- family dwellings, which requires: All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1-bedroom unit, and l per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities may be computed at 50 percent of normal req uirements where the majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling u nits are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities. To instead require no additional parking for the on-site recreation facilities to be provided. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC Section 4.O7.O2.G-7, Open space requirements, which requires at least 60 percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space within PUD districts composed entirely of residential dwelling unlts and accessory uses to instead allow 50 percent of the gross area be devoted to usable open space. Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD P L?023001 l319 June 21,2027 Page 7 of9 ov3 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. 2. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PU D monitoring u ntil 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 Palm River Accommodations, LLC, 1205 Creekside Pkwy, f210, Naples, FL 34108. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring a nd com mitments 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 Ma naging 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'sagreementtocomplywiththeCommitmentsthroughtheManagingEntity,buttheManaging Entity shall not berelieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing E ntity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PU D commitments. B. The annual PUD Monitoring Report shall identify the number of dwelling units utilized for transitional Corporate Housing, as defined in Exhibit F 5.A. C. lssuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a perm it from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the pa rt of the cou nty for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agenry or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law." (Section 125.022, FS) D. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 3. TRANSPORTATION: A. No native preservation area is required as there is no native vegetative community on the property. Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD PL2023001 1319 June 2.t.202.1 Page 8 of 9 ovc A. The maximum total daily trip generation shall not exceed 15 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. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL: 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 5. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: A. ln the event property is no longer utilized entirely for Transitional Corporate Housing, 8 dwelling units shall be required to be income restricted to individuals or families having incomes at the 100% Area Median lncome (AMl) for Collier County. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date the property ceases to be utilized for corporate employee housing and the managing entity notifies the county manager or designee in writing. lncome and rental limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report, the developer will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy ofthe income restricted units (if developed), including rent data for rented units, in a format approved by Collier County Community and Human Services Division. Developer agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. By way of example, the 2023 Florida Housing Finance Corporation lncome and Rent Limits are Iott a.lhr ,r6,t6 ,s I 1.,ffi 9i:$ 615 S 8r. 50\S sttro 5 S r,r23 t t 29,s .r.9{o js .7,s.0 t3,9,10 S l,llg t I.557 8096 s srJe 3 Et,go 3 1,r9,s 2,0?6I {,9"s(79 490 90.so3 l9 r.8D I 2,2t1 s 2,595 llot S E3.tEo It 2r1 s 2.597 s 3,1lao- 15 9?.860 5 860 s s 2.621 s 3.u6 s 3.633 6. TRANSITIONAI. CORPORATE HOUSING: A. For purposes of this PUD, Transitional Corporate Housing is defined as the temporary rentalfor no less than 30 days of a furnished apartment or condom inium to em ployees working in Collier County for companies located in Collier County. Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD P L202 3001 I3 l9 June 21, 2021 Page 9 of 9 ovc 5 ,4,950 ?9.gio I s l.r9l iS 95,8q, 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Att A - Draft Ordinance - 071024 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144  Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151  LB 0005151  LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com November 2, 2023 Ms. Laura DeJohn, Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Rezone (PL20230011318), Submittal 1 Dear Ms. DeJohn: An application for Public Hearing for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone for property located at 208 Palm River Boulevard. The PUD rezone proposes to rezone the 2.06± acre property from the RMF-16 Zoning District to the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential PUD to allow a multi-family development with a maximum of 41 units. A companion Growth Management Plan amendment (Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict PL20230011318) has been filed to authorize the proposed multi-family dwelling units. Documents filed with submittal 1 include the following: 1. Cover Letter 2. Application for PUD Rezone 3. Evaluation Criteria 4. Pre-Application meeting notes 5. Affidavit of Authorization 6. Property Ownership Disclosure 7. Covenant of Unified Control 8. Addressing Checklist 9. Warranty Deed(s) 10. Boundary Survey 11. PB 8 PG 70 12. Existing Easements 13. Aerial Location Map 14. FLUCCS Map 15. Traffic Impact Study 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Ms. Laura DeJohn, Senior Planner RE: Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Rezone (PL20230011318), Submittal 1 November 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2 16. School Concurrency 17. PUD Exhibits A-F 18. Deviation Justification 19. GMPA Amended FLU Text Please feel free to contact Rich Yovanovich at 435-3535 or me should you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP c: Palm River Accommodations, LLC Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. GradyMinor File (APRR-23) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 937 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (PL20230011319) Evaluation Criteria February 2, 2024 Evaluation Criteria-r1.docx Page 1 of 8 Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. The applicant is proposing to rezone the 2.06+/- acre property from RMF-16 to a Residential PUD to permit up to 41 multi-family dwelling units. The property would support a maximum of 33 dwelling units under the current RMF-16 zoning. The dwelling units within the proposed PUD will be employer provided housing for corporate employees. The applicant has provided a commitment that in the event the housing ceases to function for only employer provided housing that the 8 units permitted above the current RMF-16 intensity would be income restricted at the 100% or below AMI threshold. 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 site is well-suited for development and is currently developed with a 12-unit condominium project. The current zoning would permit up to 33 dwelling units without the need to rezone the property. The property will provide three internal water management areas which are depicted on the conceptual PUD master plan, and the site is permitted to discharge into the adjacent canal. A traffic impact analysis has been completed and it concludes that there is no level of service impacts associated with development of 41 multi- family dwelling units. Access will be provided at two locations on Palm River Boulevard in the approximate locations that exist today. The southernmost access point aligns with Viking Way and the second access point will be approximately 375’ north of Viking Way. The site is presently served by public water and sewer, and there will be no capacity issues associated with the increase in 8 dwelling units. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The applicant is the property owner. All other properties surrounding the site are developed. 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) February 2, 2024 Evaluation Criteria-r1.docx Page 2 of 8 c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) A companion small-scale growth management plan amendment has been filed which establishes a new subdistrict which is tailored to this specific property and establishes the proposed intensity of a maximum of 41 Transitional Corporate Housing dwelling units. The PUD is consistent with the proposed subdistrict. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4 requires that all applications must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. A companion small-scale growth management plan amendment has been filed which creates a new subdistrict providing for development of the proposed 41 employer provided dwelling units. Upon approval of the Subdistrict, the project may be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Policies 5.5 and 5.7 discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl by utilizing urban areas for development before redesignating new property for urban intensity. The proposed development is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The site represents infill redevelopment and does not result in sprawl. Policy 5.6 requires that new projects will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The proposed project will consist of 4-story buildings. The property is presently zoned RMF-16, which permits buildings to have a zoned height of 75’. The PUD has limited the zoned height to a zoned height of 65’ which is less than that permitted for the RMF- 16 zoning district. The number of dwelling units will be indiscernible since the site will be developed in accordance with standards similar to that of the RMF-16 zoning district but at a lower zoned height. Objective 7, and implementing Policies 7.1-7.7, promote smart growth policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adhere to the development character of the County. The proposed project cannot be interconnected to the adjoining property to the north as it is developed with a condominium project which has no area available for a vehicular connection. To the south is a drainage canal which prohibits any connection, and to the east is a stormwater detention pond, which also prohibits interconnection. Sidewalks do exist within the Palm River Drive ROW, and a golf cart pathway crosses the site which provides access to the nearby golf course. Transportation Element Please see the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared which demonstrates compliance with the Level of Service Standards for arterial roadways. 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) February 2, 2024 Evaluation Criteria-r1.docx Page 3 of 8 Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 6.1.1 requires preservation of 15% of the existing native vegetation on sites ranging in size from 5 acres to 20 acres. The property has been cleared in support of the existing condominium. No native vegetative communities exist on the property. Policy 6.2.5 is directed at reducing impacts to wetlands. There are no wetlands on the subject property. Objective 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. The availability of suitable habitat for any vertebrate is quite limited. The parcel is cleared and does not provide potential for any denning, habitation and /or foraging. The parcel is also surrounded by development. Housing Element Objectives 1 and 2 promote the creation of affordable housing units in the County that address the needs for various income levels. The intent of the PUD is to permit construction of 41 dwelling units of employer provided housing. While not technically “affordable” housing under the County standards, the employer will provide the units to employees as short-term transitional housing. The units will be occupied for a period of time to permit an employee time to find permanent housing. The PUD does require that in the event the units are no longer used for employer provided housing, the 8 units permitted above the existing zoning are required to be occupied by persons meeting the income guidelines for those in the 100% AMI threshold. 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 project as proposed is compatible both internally and externally. The proposed infill development of employer provided housing will be developed at lower heights than permitted today and also within the setbacks required for the existing zoning district. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The PUD will provide a minimum of 50% common open space which will consist of recreational amenity areas, buffers and water management areas. A deviation has been requested for the reduction. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) February 2, 2024 Evaluation Criteria-r1.docx Page 4 of 8 Adequate infrastructure must be in place to support future development on the site. There are no known infrastructure capacity issues that will impact this project. Water and sewer facilities exist on the property. The residential project will be developed in a single phase. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The RPUD is surrounded by zoned and developed land. Expansion of the PUD boundary is not proposed or feasible. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The project as proposed is consistent with the LDC and meets all criteria for approval of a PUD. 10.02.08 - Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas F. Nature of requirements of Planning Commission report. When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4 requires that all applications must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. A companion small-scale growth management plan amendment has been filed which creates a new subdistrict providing for development of the proposed 41 Transitional Corporate Housing dwelling units. Upon approval of the Subdistrict, the project may be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Policies 5.5 and 5.7 discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl by utilizing urban areas for development before redesignating new property for urban intensity. The proposed development is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The site represents infill redevelopment and does not result in sprawl. Policy 5.6 requires that new projects will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The proposed project will consist of 4-story buildings. The property is presently zoned RMF-16, which permits buildings to have a zoned height of 75’. The PUD has limited the zoned height to 65’ which is less than that permitted for the RMF-16 zoning district. 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) February 2, 2024 Evaluation Criteria-r1.docx Page 5 of 8 The number of dwelling units will be indiscernible since the site will be developed in accordance with standards similar to that of the RMF-16 zoning district but at a lower zoned height. Objective 7, and implementing Policies 7.1-7.7, promote smart growth policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adhere to the development character of the County. The proposed project cannot be interconnected to the adjoining property to the north as it is developed with a condominium project which has no area available for a vehicular connection. To the south is a drainage canal which prohibits any connection, and to the east is a stormwater detention pond, which also prohibits interconnection. Sidewalks do exist within the Palm River Drive ROW, and a golf cart pathway crosses the site which provides access to the nearby golf course. Transportation Element Please see the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared which demonstrates compliance with the Level of Service Standards for arterial roadways. Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 6.1.1 requires preservation of 15% of the existing native vegetation on sites ranging in size from 5 acres to 20 acres. The property has been cleared in support of the existing condominium. No native vegetative communities exist on the property. Policy 6.2.5 is directed at reducing impacts to wetlands. There are no wetlands on the subject property. Objective 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. The availability of suitable habitat for any vertebrate is quite limited. The parcel is cleared and does not provide potential for any denning, habitation and /or foraging. The parcel is also surrounded by development. Housing Element Objectives 1 and 2 promote the creation of affordable housing units in the County that address the needs for various income levels. The intent of the PUD is to permit construction of 41 dwelling units of employer provided housing. While not technically “affordable” housing under the County standards, the employer will provide the units to employees as short-term transitional housing. The units will be occupied for a period of time to permit an employee time to find permanent housing. The PUD does require that in the event the units are no longer used for employer provided housing, the 8 units permitted above the existing zoning are required to be occupied by persons meeting the income guidelines for those in the 100% AMI threshold. 2. The existing land use pattern. 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) February 2, 2024 Evaluation Criteria-r1.docx Page 6 of 8 The surrounding properties consist of multi-family condominium buildings to the north, single- family homes across Palm River Boulevard to the west, and duplex structures to the south across the drainage canal. The included zoning map identifies the corresponding zoning for the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The PUD meets the standards for a PUD rezoning per the LDC and it is consistent with the proposed planning subdistrict. The PUD zoning is not an isolated district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The PUD boundary represents a logical boundary and represents the entirety of property owned by the applicant. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The existing uses are consistent with the growth management plan, and the planned use and intensity is consistent with the proposed subdistrict. The applicant has prepared a report that documents their need for housing to attract new employees and retain existing employees. The lack of attainable housing in Collier County is well-documented and to provide 41 units of housing for use entirely by their employees is critical to their ability to continue to flourish as a top tier business in Collier County. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed rezone will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed master plan and development standards will assure compatibility. The proposed use is similar in use and intensity to that permitted under the existing RMF-16 zoning district, except that the companion small-scale amendment will permit the additional 8 dwelling units per acre on the property. The resulting development will be indiscernible from development on other RMF-16 zoned properties. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) February 2, 2024 Evaluation Criteria-r1.docx Page 7 of 8 The proposed 41 units of employer provided dwelling units will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion. The TIS prepared for the PUD rezoning application concludes that the project will not adversely impact the surrounding road network or cause any roadways to operate below their adopted level of service. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The project will obtain a SFWMD permit for the surface water management system and will have no impact on surrounding development. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 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. The proposed rezone should have no impact on 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. The proposed rezone should enhance surrounding properties and will not deter improvement or development of nearby properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Any property owner may propose zoning changes subject to the requirements of the LDC. No special privilege results from the PUD rezoning. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The proposed PUD provides for an increase in the number of dwelling units above that authorized by the current zoning. The current zoning is RMF-16 and would permit a maximum of 33 dwelling units. The companion small-scale amendment and PUD will result in an additional 8 total dwelling unit above that permitted today. The rezoning is necessary to support the proposed use. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The scale of the project is in scale with the needs of the community. 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) February 2, 2024 Evaluation Criteria-r1.docx Page 8 of 8 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. It is not impossible to find other sites in the County; however, this infill property has development surrounding it, and the site already is zoned with the highest intensity conventional residential zoning district. The site has the necessary infrastructure in place, and it is located less than 1 mile from the employer’s primary campus in Collier County. 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 has been previously cleared and filled in support of the existing condominium building. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. There are adequate roadways and utilities available at the site. There are no public facilities deficiencies at the present time, and none will occur as a result of this project. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The project is consistent with the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment, and it is compatible with surrounding development. 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 956 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 957 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 960 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 | Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov ww.colliercountyfl.gov 01/2023 Page 1 of 3 This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership N.A. b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership Palm River Accommodations, LLC, 1265 Creekside Pkwy, #210., Naples FL 34108 Krisdan Management, Inc. – Manager (100%) Reinhold D. Schmieding, Chairman/President (100%) Daniel Hall, Asst. Treasurer/VP Erika Schmieding, VP Zeida Orbea, Asst. Treasurer 100 c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership N.A. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 | Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov ww.colliercountyfl.gov 01/2023 Page 2 of 3 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership N.A. e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership N.A. Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address N.A. g. Date subject property acquired 2023 Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 | Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov ww.colliercountyfl.gov 01/2023 Page 3 of 3 Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition’s final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. September 13, 2023 Agent/Owner Signature Date D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Agent/Owner Name (please print) AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.cPacket Pg. 984Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) A NEXTera ENERGY Company April 5, 2024 Denise Rakich 7400 TRAIL BLVD STE. 200 NAPLES FL Re: Easement Encroachment 208 PALM RIVER BLVD NAPLES FL 34110 Name: Denise Rakich Thank you for contacting FPL about the easement (428891) O.R. 659 PG 1616 encroachment due to proposed parking spaces and relocated landscape. As shown on your Site Plan FPL has not objection to the proposed encroachment into the 25 ft FPL easement on the perimeter of Parcel 65372280001 in the utility easement at the referenced location. FPL has no objection to this existing encroachment and will not require its removal, however FPL does not agree to the future encroachment of any other structures into the easement. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at 239 367 4156. Sincerely, Orlando Fernandez Distribution Engineer Florida Power & Light Company, 4105 15th AVE SW,NAPLES , FL 34116 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Palm River BLVDViking WAY Flame Vine DRShar w ood DR Coral Vine DRPalm View DROakwo o d C T Fairway CIR Country Club DRP a lm V ie w DR Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Aerial Location Map . 280 0 280140 Feet LEGEND SUBJECT PROPERTY Document Path: G:\Planning\PROJ - PLANNING\APRR-23 Arthrex Palm River Residential\Drawings\GIS\AerialLocationMap.mxd9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) VIKING WAY (PALM RIVER BLVD)100' R.O.W.FLUCCS CODE 1330 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL FLUCCS CODE 1820 GOLF COURSE FLUCCS CODE 5120 CANAL 0 100'50'SCALE: 1" = 100' GradyMinor Civil Engineers ●Land Surveyors ●Planners ●Landscape Architects Cert. of Auth. EB 0005151 Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 ZZZ.GradyMinor.coP Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 1330 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1.17± 1820 GOLF COURSE 0.76± 5120 CANAL 0.13± TOTAL 2.06± 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.cPacket Pg. 1014 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.cPacket Pg. 1016Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.cPacket Pg. 1017 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.cPacket Pg. 1026Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.cPacket Pg. 1027Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.cPacket Pg. 1028 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (PL20230011319) Deviation Justification January 4, 2024 Page 1 of 1 Deviation Justification-r1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings, which requires: All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1-bedroom unit, and 1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities may be computed at 50 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities. To instead require no additional parking for the on-site recreation facilities to be provided. Justification: The single building site has been designed in a manner that places all units in close proximity to the project amenity area, if located outdoor and if located on the building rooftop, all 41 units would have access to the amenity within the building. 2. Deviation #2 requests relief from LDC Section 4.07.02.G.1, Open space requirements, which requires within PUD districts composed entirely of residential dwelling units and accessory uses, at least 60 percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space to instead allow 50 percent of the gross area be devoted to usable open space. Justification: The 50% open space standard is justified. The Palm River Corporate Housing project represents redevelopment of a residential project on 2.06+/- acres. The applicant is proposing a project that has comparable building heights to the adjacent condominiums. Due to the size of the parcel, meeting the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed height. A taller building, having less lot coverage would be necessary to meet the 60% open space requirement. The proposed building height and building scale is in keeping with the adjacent development. The County has recently provided data indicating that over 50,000 people per day commute to work from outside Collier County. The Chamber of Commerce has indicated that housing affordability is the number one public policy priority. 9.A.6.c Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: Att B - Applicant Backup - Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Neighborhood Information Meeting Affidavit of Compliance I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-4 l, 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 advettisement which are her eby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance (Signature of Applicant) STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of [Z] physical presence or Don line registration this �day of December , 20 �' by Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician who is [Z] personally known to me or 0has pro duced ___ -,-________ as identification . ...-fi-.vJ�... CARIN J. DWYER {;(. �·, };J MY COMMIS �ION # GG 982367 ·-:�� .. �-•· EXPIRES. May 14, 202• ·•·,i?�.f.\,••' Bonded Thru Notary l'ublic Uncler.witer, Carin J. Dwyer Print Name of Notary Public 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION: PL20230011318 – Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict; and PL20230011319 – Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Rezone In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requirements, a neighborhood Information meeting (NIM) hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. (GradyMinor) and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Palm River Accommodations, LLC (Applicant) will be held January 10, 2024, 5:30 pm at Arthrex (1 Arthrex Way, Naples, FL 34108). Palm River Accommodations, LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) establishing the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Rezone from the RMF-16 Zoning District to the Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD to allow redevelopment of the property with a maximum of 41 residential dwelling units for corporate employee housing for Arthrex. The subject property is comprised of 2.06± acres and is located at 208 Palm River Blvd in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. If you have questions, please contact Sharon Umpenhour with GradyMinor by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or phone: 239-947-1144. For project information or to register to participate remotely* go to, GradyMinor.com/Planning. Any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. *Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The applicant and GradyMinor are not responsible for technical issues. PROJECT LOCATION GRADYMINOR.COM/PLAN 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 10A |WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2023 |NAPLES DAILY NEWS + NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION: PL20230011318 – Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict; and PL20230011319 – Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Rezone In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requirements, a neighborhood Information meeting (NIM) hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. (GradyMinor) and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Palm River Accommodations, LLC (Applicant) will be held January 10, 2024, 5:30 pm at Arthrex (1 Arthrex Way, Naples, FL 34108). Palm River Accommodations, LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) establishing the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Rezone from the RMF-16 Zoning District to the Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD to allow redevelopment of the property with a maximum of 41 residential dwelling units for corporate employee housing for Arthrex. The subject property is comprised of 2.06± acres and is located at 208 Palm River Blvd in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. If you have questions, please contact Sharon Umpenhour with GradyMinor by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or phone: 239-947-1144. For project information or to register to participate remotely* go to, gradyminor.com/ Planning. Any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. *Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The applicant and GradyMinor are not responsible for technical issues.ND-38150568 ND-38178008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at 9:00 A.M. on January 9, 2024, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE 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 TOURIST (RT) ZONING DISTRICT AND CONSERVATION (CON) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE 12425 UNION ROAD RPUD TO ALLOW UP TO 109 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN PORT OF THE ISLANDS, APPROXIMATELY ½ MILE NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (US 41) AT 12400 AND 12425 UNION ROAD, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 52, RANGE 28, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 51.5± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20220004175]. A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted ten (10) minutes to speak on an item. Written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/our- county/visitors/calendar-of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Geoffrey Willig at 252-8369 or email to Geoffrey.Willig@colliercountyfl.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RICK LOCASTRO, CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER By: Merline Forgue, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) NewportDRCaysDRUnion RDTamiamiTRLE !I Project Location (((((((((AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddd JJJJJJJJJJJuuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssssssssssssssssttttttttttt iiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn TTTTTTTTTTiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee fffffffffffffooooofoffofooooooofoffoffofoofoffofoorrrrrrrrrrrrr CCCCCCCCCCCCCCChhhhhhhhhh ssssssssssssss TTTTTTTT ttttttttttooooooooooooooo NNNNNNNNNNNN nnnnnnnnnnnnssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!! Uncover: ➢Where was Naples’ last nudist colony? ➢Did Marco Polo really discover Marco Island? ➢Which celebrity “gets down at night” in Naples? ➢Where is Naples’ best local hangout? ➢What is “Square Grouper”? ➢Where on Fifth Avenue did Charles Lindbergh land his plane? All Answers at our Website Below! Naples Secrets in the Sun is available at Barnes and Noble (www.bn.com), Amazon (www.amazon.com/books), or at our own site: www.NaplesSecretsintheSun.com. Secrets in the Sun also contains the wit & wisdom of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Croce, and Picard! •A great gift for Christmas (or, for our British friends, Boxing Day). •Make sure all visiting friends and family get a copy. At least, they will know what they are getting into before they arrive!!! Get Your Copy at Sunshine Booksellers or Naples Transportation & Tours Experience - Naples Center P.S. The Author is available (at molsattire@gmail.com)for book talks/signings at all clubs and communities. President Joe Biden announced the launch of a national database on Mon- day to help hold law enforcement ac- countable for misconduct in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and na- tional conversations about American policing. The president touted the database, which will track serious misconduct by federal law enforcement officers, as a mechanism to help prevent bad hiring decisions. “This database will ensure that rec- ords of serious misconduct by federal law enforcement officers are readily available to agencies considering hiring those officers,” Biden said in a state- ment. The Biden administration commit- ted to creating the database in a May 2022 executive order that marked the two-year anniversary of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police of- ficer Derek Chauvin, who held a knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine min- utes. The killing sparked outrage across the country and calls for police reform, particularly around policing of Black communities and other people of color. The National Law Enforcement Ac- countability Database or “NLEAD” will track eight areas of behavior that the administration classified as “serious misconduct” by former and current federal law enforcement officers over the past seven years, according to the Justice Department. Forms of serious misconduct include using excessive force, making false reports, engaging in bias or discrimination, and sexual mis- conduct. It will also include officer commendations and awards. “This database will give our law en- forcement agencies an important new tool for vetting and hiring officers and agents that will help strengthen our ef- forts to build and retain that trust,” At- torney General Merrick Garland said in a separate statement Monday. The database won’t be searchable by the public, but Justice Department em- ployees and authorized users at other federal law enforcement agencies will ultimately get access, according to a department official. The database cur- rently includes Justice Department of- ficers but will be expanded to include other federal law enforcement “in the coming months,” the official said. The department said it will publish a public report each year with aggregated data that keeps law enforcement offi- cers anonymous. It said it has also part- nered with a police training association to expand a national registry of decerti- fication and revocation actions against state and local law enforcement officers as a way to encourage accountability efforts in state and local agencies. George Floyd’s killing in 2020 sparked outrage across the country and calls for police reform.DRAKE BENTLEY/MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL FILE Aysha Bagchi USA TODAY Biden launches national law enforcement database 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 1NAME1NAME2NAME3NAME4NAME5NAME6LEGAL1LEGAL2LEGAL3LEGAL4FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE185 PALM RIVER INC1400 HUMMINGBIRD LANENAPLES, FL 34105---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK ALOT 46 LESS OR 1800 PG 197965471800007 UAIELLO, PHIL1008 MANATEE RD G-101NAPLES, FL 34114---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 426180160006 UANNE R BRANSTRATOR LIV TRUST 137 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 75965270960009 UBAKER II, RICHARD JMEAGHAN BAKER300 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3565521400001 UBETTEN, RANDALL & LISABETH A164 CORAL VINE DRIVENAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4465221760009 UBONNER, LANCE N121 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---1135PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 75765270880008 UBONNIE JEAN HILTON REV TRUST 180 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5701PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 8565223360009 UBRADLEY, JOE M & ELAINE11432 QUAIL VILLAGE WAYNAPLES, FL 34119---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1826180720006 UBRANT, KAREN G261 PALM RIVER BLVD APT B201NAPLES, FL 34110---2118PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-20165620280009 UBROWN, SARAH626 PALM VIEW DRIVE UNIT #1NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 126330040002 UCAHILL, SUSAN MROBERT M FAULKNER58 MANOR SQUARESPARTA, NJ 07871---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-20265620480003 UCANNON, TIMOTHY P & LISA L1714 W JACKSON STPAINESVILLE, OH 44077---1314 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG D-10169700520009 UCANTILLI FAMILY TRUST8268 VIA VITTORIA WAYORLANDO, FL 32819---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 53565270040000 UCHARRON, SUSAN A175 CROWN POINT DRIVEUNIT 8NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 826380080009 UCHIDSEY, DAVID & ANNE M175 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5702PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4765221880002 UCOLBY ROBERTSON REV TRUST ANTHONY ALLEN REPICKY 312 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 33OR 1778 PG 42065521320000 UCOMERIATO, LINDA306 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1144PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3465521360002 UCONGER, CLARINA M250 PALM RIVER BLVD # B202NAPLES, FL 34110---2106RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG B-20269700320005 UCONNOLLY, JEAN P20 BROADWAYGREAT NECK, NY 11021---4439 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG D-20169700600000 UCRONAUER, RAYMOND F281 PALM RIVER BLVD #201NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-20165620120004 UCROWN DRIVE 173 LLC9698 OXFORD STREETNAPLES, FL 34109---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 926380120008 UDAVIS, PAULINE B657 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5711COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-326230120006 UDENARDIS, TIMOTHY MCASSANDRE T DENARDIS108 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---1136PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 535B OR 1075 PG 198965270120001 UDENARDIS, TIMOTHY MCASSANDRE T DENARDIS MARY P DENARDIS108 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---113623 48 25 BEG SW1/4 CNR OF LOT535A PALM RIVER EST 2, E 154.94FT, S 35FT, E 50FT S29.52FT, SW1/4 ALG STREAM TO 00159320000 UDIEKEN JOINT TRUST143 OAKWOOD CTNAPLES, FL 34110---1145PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK FLOT 2265475920006 UDIMARTINO FAMILY TRUST561 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5717COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1626180640005 UDIMARTINO, JOHN ANTHONY561 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1926180760008 UDONNA L WOODS TRUST201 PALM RIVER BLVD # 102NAPLES, FL 34110---2113PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-10265620720006 UDOUGHERTY, GREGORY TARACELIS D DOUGHERTY 713 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-426280480000 UDRESSLER, DANIEL P765 PALM VIEW DR #DP7NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-726280600000 UDUNN, TRACY PAULJOANNIE BIANCHINIPO BOX 1348BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34133---0 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG C-10169700360007 UELBA ROCIO ROBERSON LAND TRUST 613 PALM VIEW DR #9NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 926180360000 UELSER, WILLIAM J240 PALM RIVER BLVD #C202NAPLES, FL 34110---2112RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG C-20269700480000 UFALVEY, JAMES S & JUDITH A% FALVEY REALTY INC1959 MENTOR AVEPAINESVILLE, OH 44077---1349 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG A-10169700040000 UFELLMAN, ARNOLD L46 CEDAR LAND RDORLEANS, MA 02653---3803COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 126180040003 UFELLMAN, ARNOLD L46 CEDAR LAND RDORLEANS, MA 02653---3803COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 3 OR 1832 PG 141026180120004 UFISHER, JOELLENDOUGLAS MATA168 CORAL VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 45+ BEG AT MOST ELY CNR LOT 46, S 56 DEG W ALG S LOT LI126.06FT TO E R/W CORAL VINE 65221800008 UFORST, MICHAEL737 PALM VIEW DR #E2NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-226280240004 UFOX, WILLIAM H5321 TALLOWOOD WAYNAPLES, FL 34116---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG A-20169700120001 UGAMA 665 LLC1640 NW 31 AVEMIAMI, FL 33125---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-126230200007 UGARRISON, LINDA649 PALM VIEW DR #A1NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-126230040005 UGIL, ELIDA A624 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5712COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1426380320002 UGOMEZ, CLAUDIAPAULA SCHEB142 OAKWOOD CTNAPLES, FL 34110---1146PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK FLOT 2165475880007 UGUNDERMAN, ANDREA709 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-326280440008 UHADZHIEVA, ALBENA & EMIL1362 VOLLKAMER TRAILELG GROVE VILLAG, IL 60007---0 COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 226180080005 UHAHN TR, DOLORES HDOLORES H HAHN TRUST 3468 RABBITS FOOT TRLLEXINGTON, KY 40503---3744PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-20265620800007 UHAJDERLLI, SHPETIM356 ASHBURY WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1126180440001 UHAJDERLLI, SHPETIM & TEREZA 356 ASHBURY WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-626280560001 UHALL, DONNA JULIETTE ANNE241 PALM RIVER BLVD#C-102NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-10265620400009 UHAMILTON, DOUGLAS NPO BOX 122DEALE, MD 20751---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-20265620160006 UHANKEY, CHERYL A11477 US ROUTE 422KITTANNING, PA 16201---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-226230240009 UHAROLD D MILLER TRUST2594 TIMOTHY PLWOOSTER, OH 44691---8413RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG C-20169700440008 UHEFLIN JR EST, JENNINGS B%JENNINGS B HEFLIN III PR JENNINGS B HEFLIN IIIKAREN M HEFLIN 15989 PAVER BARNES RD MARYSVILLE, OH 43040---7085 PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-20165620440001 UHILTON, RONALD D & ELIZABETH R176 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5701PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 8465223340003 UHISERMAN LIVING TRUST1805 S GEORGE MASON DRARLINGTON, VA 22204---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-10265620240007 UHOGUE, JENNIFER KAY281 PALM RIVER BLVD #102NAPLES, FL 34110---2107PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-10265620080005 UHOSSLER, JEFFREY617 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 826180320008 UILIE, CRISTIAN ASORINA PAULA MARTA ILIE 221 PALM RIVER BLVD #D201NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-20165620600003 UINTARAKUNCHIT, PRACHAWIJITRA INTARAKUNCHIT769 PALM VIEW DR #DP8NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-826280640002 UJORIS, FRANK757 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1207COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-526280520009 UJUDITH C LEVIN REV TRUST2869 HIDDEN HOLLOW RDOSHKOSH, WI 54904---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG D-10269700560001 UKAREN STRODE DEC OF LIV TRUST 136 HIGHWAY 1554OWENSBORO, KY 42301---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG B-10169700200002 UKASS, SHAUN W & JENNIFER140 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---1136PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 53765270200002 UKNIGHT, SEAMUS124 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 535A65270080002 UKOLOSKY, PETER CHARLES250 PALM RIVER BLVD #B102NAPLES, FL 34110---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG B-10269700240004 UKOTTENSTETTE, BARBARA P6970 MOUNTAIN BRUSH CIRHIGHLANDS RANCH, CO 80130---5309 COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-1026280720003 UKRIVAC, GREGORY D656 PALM VIEW DR #4NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 426330160005 UKRONIGER, AXELSTEFANIE PIENNAK146 OAKWOOD CTNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK FLOT 20, LESS ESMT DESC IN OR1877 PG 16865475840005 ULAMB, PATRICIA A573 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5717COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1526180600003 ULAMMERS, KAITLIN & BRYAN129 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 75865270920007 ULAPLAYA GOLF CLUB LLC327 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---310123 48 25 PALM RIVER GOLFCOURSE AS DESC IN OR 601 PG 1467 136.9 AC00159120006 ULAPLAYA GOLF CLUB LLC327 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---3101PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 756+ THAT PORTION OF VACATED PALM RIVER BLVD VACATED IN OR 672 PG 40165270840006 ULEBIN, CARLA H682 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5712COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 626330240006 ULESLIE, R MICHAEL & JENNIFER D 336 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1144PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 2965521160008 ULIPPER, PATRICK680 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 526330200004 ULIS, CHRISTINE172 CORAL VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5718PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 46,LESS BEG AT MOST ELY CNR LOT 46, S 56 DEG W ALG S LOT LI126.06FT TO E R/W CORAL VINE 65221840000 ULOPEZ, ALBERTO IJUDITH VILA175 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 38965223400008 ULOPEZ, DIGNA M ESPINOSA705 PALM VIEW DR #DP2NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-226280400006 ULULO, ENTELA725 PALM VIEW DR #D3NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-326280120001 UMANCHESTER, DOUGLAS C & MURIEL 625 PALM VIEW DR # 6NAPLES, FL 34110---5728COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 626180240007 UMARK J ANDREWS & ELYSIA LANDREWS IRREV TRUST3546 KELLIE LNMELBOURNE, KY 41059---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-226280080002 UMASSARD, PAULPAULA HUFF549 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1726180680007 UMATRICCIANO, GREGORY PMARY KATE GLOTH733 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-126280200002 UMILLER, JAY MICHAELTRACY LYNN WILLIAMS114 S HARVEY AVEOAK PARK, IL 60302---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3065521200007 UMILLER, MICHAEL M318 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1144PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3265521280001UMITCHELL, KELSEY S17453 NEWBERRY LNESTERO, FL 33928---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 726380040007 UMOATES FAMILY TRUST458 SHARWOOD DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5726PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK AA PORTION OF LOT 46 DESC IN OR 1352 PG 187165471800052 UMORALES, MELISSA ANNE5563 WOODBERRY CIRCLEMARIETTA, GA 30068---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 226330080004 UMORRISON, JOHN J G & CLAIRE L 182 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---5706PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 1465220560006 UMOSKU, ENO677 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5711COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-426230320000 UNASCIMENTO, JOVITA M601 PALM VIEW DR #12NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1226180480003 UNIELSEN, JEFFREY RJENNIFER K NIELSEN1151 N 400 EASTCHESTERTON, IN 46304---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-426280160003 UOL TRUST753 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-926280680004 UORLANDO, LAURIE ANN169 CROWN DR #11NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1126380200009 UPALM RIVER ACCOMMODATIONS LLC % KRISDAN MANAGEMENT INC 1205 CREEKSIDE PKWY #210NAPLES, FL 34108---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 4 BLK FTHAT PORTION OF BLK F F/K/A RIVER ROYALE CONDO PH 2 AND 3 AS DESC IN OR 847 PGS 286&287 65372280001 UPAUZA TR, PAUL GTHERESA PAUZA TR103 ALEXANDRIA DRVERNON HILLS, IL 60061---2044 COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1426180560004 UPENELOPE J POWARSKI REV TRUST 260 PALM RIVER BLVD UNIT A102NAPLES, FL 34110---1171RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG A-10269700080002 UPERGOLINI, MARK ANTHONY701 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT DP-126280360007 UPERRY, JOHN WMARY J HARRINGTON-PERRY 230 PALM RIVER BLVD APT D202NAPLES, FL 34110---2104RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG D-20269700640002 UPIATT JR, CHARLES L & DIANE R 176 PALM RIVER BLVDNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 1365220520004 UPICA, PHILLIP & KAREN A342 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---1144PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 28OR 1540 PG 10365521120006 UPOKARNEY, KIMBERLY ASARAH L POKARNEY171 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5702PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4865221920001 UNotice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA.Petition: PL20190000336/PL20230011318 | Buffer: 500' | Date: 11/15/23 | Site Location: 65372280001POList_500.xls9.A.6.dPacket Pg. 1037Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 2RENDON JR, VIDAL & NORMA L 163 CORAL VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5719 PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 1565220600005 URILEY, MATTHEW D & HANNA M 167 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0 PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4965221960003 URINALDI, JACK D CONNIE COMUNALE 717 PALM VIEW DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34110---0 COCOHATCHEE MANOR A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-126280040000 UROBERSON, GEORGE A & PAOLA 609 PALM VIEW DRIVE #10NAPLES, FL 34110---0 COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO) UNIT 1026180400009 UROBEY, JEFFREY ALLEN DANIEL SETH MINSO 7136 HOCKEY TRL LOS ANGELES, CA 90068---0 COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO) UNIT 726180280009 UROBINSON, CRAIG E & GINGER LEA 452 SHARWOOD DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5726 PALM RIVER EST UNIT 7 BLK A LOT 4565471760008 UROCK, KENNETH C DEBRA L ROCK 218 ELM STREET VERSAILLES, KY 40383---0 PALM ROYAL APARTMENTS A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-20265620640005 UROHENA INC 204 BRADSTREET AVEREVERE, MA 02151---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 4365221720007 URONALD J CERRITELLI REV TRUST 11668 QUAILVILLAGE WAYNAPLES, FL 34119---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-326280280006 URONCONE JR, ANTHONY & ALICIA A 13595 SCHANG RDEAST AURORA, NY 14052---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-10165620520002 UROYTER, NATALYA6845 SOUTH QUANTOCK WAYAURORA, CO 80016---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-126230360002 URUPE II, JOHN673 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-326230280001 URUPINSKI, KELLY ANN872 COUNTRY CLUB RDBRIDGEWATER, NJ 08807---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 326330120003 USABOVIC, SEMO & AZRA1573 CONEY ISLAND AVENUEBROOKLYN, NY 11230---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-426230480005 USEASONAL INVESTMENTS INC11500 OLIVE BLVD #240ST LOUIS, MO 63141---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-20265620320008 USERAFINA LEONE REV TRUST172 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5701PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 8365223320007 USIMON, MONICA E685 PALM VIEW DRIVE #C2NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-226230400001 USMITH, KEVIN ROBERT171 CROWN DR #10NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1026380160000 USMITH, SUE K653 PALM VIEW DR UNIT A2NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-226230080007 USOUFFIE, ROBERT DAVID260 PALM RIVER BLVD #A 202NAPLES, FL 34110---0RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG A-20269700160003 USOULE, MARTHA C43 HOMEWOOD CIRYARMOUTH, ME 04096---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-10165620040003 USULLIVAN, THOMAS C221 PALM RIVER BLVD #102NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-10265620560004 UTATONETTI, FELIX D & JOANN E 5150 KNEALE DRLYNDHURST, OH 44124---1227 RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG B-20169700280006 UTHOMAS M FUGARD TRUST163 FLAME VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 5065222000001 UTOSLLUKU, MARINEO661 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-426230160008 UTURK TRUST201 PALM RIVER BLVD APT E101NAPLES, FL 34110---1164PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-10165620680007 UUDO M & EVA M BECKERMANN TRUST156 CORAL VINE DRNAPLES, FL 34110---5719PALM RIVER EST UNIT 1 LOT 16OR 1062 PG 2465220640007 UURBAN, MARGARETTRACY S BARBER324 COUNTRY CLUB DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM RIVER EST UNIT 8 LOT 3165521240009 UVAN OS, RON LJENNIFER K KALWITZ201 PALM RIVER BLVD #E201NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-20165620760008 UVECCHIONE, RANDOLPH622 PALM VIEW DRNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1326380280003 UW L VANPICKERILL TRUST430 WIEDLOCHER RDANNA, IL 62906---3067PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-10165620360000 UWAHL, STEPHANIE LYNN513 PALM VIEW DR #20NAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 2026180800007 UWILKINSON, RAYMOND & MAUREEN 132 VIKING WAYNAPLES, FL 34110---1136PALM RIVER EST UNIT 2 LOT 536OR 1381 PG 137465270160003 UWILKS, JERRY745 PALM VIEW DR UNIT E4NAPLES, FL 34110---1207COCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT E-426280320005 UWINTHROP, KIM261 PALM RIVER BLVD #B101NAPLES, FL 34110---0PALM ROYAL APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-10165620200005 UYANKEES UCK LLC15817 DELAPLATA LNNAPLES, FL 34110---0COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 526180200005 UZULUAGA, OLGA L597 PALM VIEW DR #13NAPLES, FL 34110---5717COCOHATCHEE CLUB (CONDO)UNIT 1326180520002 UCOLLARD, GILLES & VALERIE174 RUE DEBUSSYSIX FOURS 83140 FRANCECOCOHATCHEE VILLASA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1226380240001 FFRANK & RACHEL ZAND REV TRUST 35 BLUE FOREST DRIVETORONTO M3H 4W4 CANADA RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUM BLDG C-10269700400006 FPAVLOVIC, VOJISLAV & LJILJANA201-472 UPPER KENILWORTH AVEHAMILTON L8T 4G8 CANADACOCOHATCHEE MANORA CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-326230440003 FCOCOHATCHEE CLUB A CONDO MINIUMCOCOHATCHEE CLUB A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 26180000001 65371840002COCOHATCHEE MANOR A COND OMINIUMCOCOHATCHEE MANOR A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 26230000003 65371880004COCOHATCHEE VILLAS A CON DOMINIUMCOCOHATCHEE VILLAS A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 26330000000 65370680001PALM ROYAL APARTMENTS ACONDOMINIUMPALM ROYAL APARTMENTS A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 65620000001 65372320000RIVER ROYALE APARTMENTSA CONDOMINIUMRIVER ROYALE APARTMENTS A CONDOMINIUMhrd_parcel_id: 69700000008 65372360002POList_500.xls9.A.6.dPacket Pg. 1038Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 1 of 15 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING TRANSCRIPT PETITIONS: PL20230011318 – Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict; and PL20230011319 – Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD Rezone SUMMARY: Wayne Arnold, representing Arthrex, introduces the project team and explains that the meeting is being held to discuss two land use applications in Collier County. The applications include a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning of the property. The intent of the project is to demolish existing condominium buildings and replace them with transitional corporate housing for Arthrex employees. The proposed development would increase the density of the property by eight units. The project team presents plans for the development, including a zoning master plan, landscape plan, and development standards. They also discuss the timeline for the project, which includes obtaining permits, working with county staff, and attending public hearings. The team addresses questions and concerns from attendees, including issues related to height, buffers, access to the property, and the impact on neighboring properties. The team emphasizes that public input is important and encourages attendees to participate in the public hearing process. They also provide contact information for further inquiries. TRANSCRIPT: Wayne Arnold: Good evening, everybody. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm here with Grady Minor and Associates representing Arthrex and I'll introduce our project team before we get started. And we have Trent Lewis from Arthrex. He's here in the room. We have Rich Devon which is our legal counsel. Jim Banks is our traf�ic consultant. Jim Carr, I'm not sure where Jim went, but Jim's a civil engineer on the project and Sharon Umpenhour from our �irm is going to help with the recording of the meeting. So, this is a neighborhood information meeting for two land use applications in Collier County and we're required to hold neighborhood information meetings for them, and we're required to record those and create a transcript to provide to the county. So, we're here to talk about two applications. One is a comprehensive plan amendment. So, we're creating our own sub-district for the subject property. And then we're also rezoning the property from RMS-16 zoning to a residential PV. And the intent is to, I'm sure we need to, it's not advancing. Time out while- Richard Yovanovich: While you're �iguring out you want to introduce county staff. Wayne Arnold: Thank you. Appreciate that. So, the subject property is just a little bit over two acres. It currently has condominium buildings on the property. You can see its on Palm River Boulevard and just near Viking Way. Our intent is to demolish those existing condominiums and rebuild what we're calling transitional corporate housing. There's no de�inition for that in the county code, so we're going to be re�ining that de�inition with county staff as we go along. But the intent is to provide corporate housing for employees as they transition to our area, so they'll have a place to reside while they're seeking permanent housing. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 2 of 15 We have to do a couple things to do that. Right now, the property allows a total of about 31 units we're looking to put... or 33 units. I'm sorry. We're looking to put 41 units on it, so we're asking for an eight unit increase in density, but that requires us to modify the comprehensive plan and the zoning for the property. So, those are the two applications that are under consideration, so we could build a total of 41 of these housing units. Future land use map change: we'll be changing the map and writing new subdistrict text. The text is shown here on the screen. I'm not going to go through all of that, but so this is intended to be corporate housing. What we've been talking to staff about is in the event that somehow the corporate housing component of this ends, there would be a commitment to provide those eight additional units as some form of affordable housing, but we don't expect that to occur. But for the foreseeable future, we expect that the demand's going to be there for the corporate housing. Arthrex and others in the community, I'm sure you all know Naples Community Hospital, the school district, Collier County Government, everybody's seeking a way to �ind employee housing, and this is Arthrex's attempt to have employee housing. We'll write the language so that if Arthrex can't ful�ill those 41 units, there might be an opportunity for NCH or some other close employer to also share in the bene�it of those units. We have to create a zoning master plan and the zoning master plan identi�ies the location of the L-shaped building where the number 1 is on that screen and the access to the site will remain from Palm River Boulevard to our south is the drainage canal. Go back to the aerial so everybody can see that. You can see that the canal is on the south side of the property and Palm River boulevards to the west, and then we're surrounded by golf course lakes to the east and another condominium project to the northeast. This is a little bit closer example showing you a little bit more the amenity for the site. They're going to be adding a pool to the south side of the project. What they're proposing is, you can see the parking spaces delineated under the building. That's proposed to be a four-story building over parking. Here's a part of the landscape plan that's been submitted to the county. It's part of the site plan review that Jim Carr and Agnoli Barber & Brundage have been working on, but you can see the landscaping treatments that are proposed. We have some water management features we're adding to the site and then, of course, putting in landscaping to enhance the building that's going to be constructed. As part of the proposed PUD, we have to establish development standards. I'm not going to go through all of those, but this would permit us to have the four-story over parking building, and then create setbacks that allow the building to function properly. In a nutshell, that's where we are. We've started the process and I'll just explain where we are. So, we've submitted both applications to the county. We've received some preliminary feedback from staff. We're in the process of addressing some of their comments. We're holding this Neighborhood Information Meeting. And then, the next step will be for us to continue to work with staff for the next month or so, hopefully, and then get scheduled for a Collier County Planning Commission hearing, and then they'll make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 3 of 15 So that process, hopefully, can wrap up in the next several months for us. It's hard to predict, but hopefully that we can work through the process fairly quickly and easily. So those dates are to be determined for those public hearings. But if you receive notice for this meeting, you'll be receiving notice from Collier County Government. And if you live in the vicinity, you'll see the big four by eight zoning signs go up on the property once hearing dates have been established. Sharon Umpenhour: Last slide. Wayne Arnold: What's that, Sharon? Sorry. Sharon Umpenhour: Click to the last slide. Wayne Arnold: So, this has some other project information on it, if you want to take a screenshot of this or get one of Sharon's business cards for after. We'll update our information on our website as we continue to update and make submittals to Collier County, so everything that the county sees the public can see as well. It'll be here or if you feel more comfortable talking to Laura DeJohn or Parker Klopf, feel free to do that. I'm sure they'll make available their contact information. It's on the bottom of the screen here that Sharon's provided to us. So, with that, what we typically do is open it up if there are some question and answers. Sharon, I'm not sure if we have people that are online on Zoom, but the meeting's being broadcast on Zoom as well as here live. So, we'll take questions and answers from the room and because of the recording that's being taken for Zoom, we need you to be on a microphone. Sharon's got a portable microphone, and we'll get it in your hand. And then, if you can ask your question, then we can respond to it, that would be great. So, if you have a question in the room, just raise your hand and we'll get a microphone to you. Yes, sir. Tim Cannon: Just for the record my name's Tim Cannon. If you pull up a picture, the GIS picture that you had there. Wayne Arnold: Tell me when to stop. Tim Cannon: All right, one... Yeah, right there. Wayne Arnold: Okay. Tim Cannon: There are four white roofs you see just to the east and my unit is across from the pool that stares directly at this property. This property just for historical purposes was to be Phase 3. Our buildings were Phase 1. Across the street was Phase 2. Before he completed this Phase 3 on this property, he changed the plans and put up apartments. They're not condominiums; they're apartments. Since those apartments were occupied, we've had nothing but trouble. They have screened lanais in the back, and they look right down on our pool. We've had to grow 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 4 of 15 some landscape screening and whatnot through there. My question is what is the... I didn't see it in the materials. If it's there, I'm sorry, I just missed it, but what is the maximum height of a building that's allowed right now? Wayne Arnold: So, what we're proposing are buildings that are four stories over parking, we've set that standard at a zone height of 65 feet and an actual height of 75 feet. We're working with the project architect to try to re�ine that. We put those numbers in there as a holding place. They're still trying to work on the building design. Tim Cannon: I saw your proposal that you're 65 feet, but my question is what's the current height that is permitted as it's currently zoned? Wayne Arnold: The RMF-16 zoning allows a permitted height of 50 feet as a zoned height. That's not the maximum height, that's the zoned height. The county measures height in a couple of different ways, but the zoned height of 50 feet could actually be 60 feet, 65 feet, something taller, because it accounts for all roof structure, all elevator shafts, anything that's above the roof line. Tim Cannon: And I saw on the screen there, the minimum square footage of a unit is 650 feet? Wayne Arnold: Yes, that's what we established. It's been a pretty typical number that we've been using for apartments. I don't have a �loor plan to show you. They're still working with MHK Architecture to come up with an actual design for each of the �loors. My gut tells me that most of those units are going to exceed the 650 square feet, but that's the minimum that we've established for a square footage. Tim Cannon: I appreciate the concept of affordable housing. I understand the needs for it, and you get a density bonus of some kind under the current zoning I believe. But as I understand what's being proposed, this isn't going to bene�it �irst responders or teachers or nurses. It's going to bene�it Arthrex employees. Wayne Arnold: That is correct. The �irst interest here is for Arthrex employees. It's a recruiting tool and a way to retain employees for what is one of our area largest and private sector employers because we've all been around long enough to know that the housing issue is real. Whether you're a higher paid professional or a lower paid person that works in our community, it's hard to �ind housing regardless. And if you just moved here, it's hard to know where you want to reside, so this provides that transitional opportunity for their employees. Tim Cannon: Thanks. Wayne Arnold: Thank you. Sharon, I think there's a question over here on this side. Okay, thank you. Speaker 5: You answered it. Wayne Arnold: Okay. Thank you. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 5 of 15 Laura DeJohn: Sorry. Wayne, this is Laura DeJohn on behalf of Collier County. And just to help answer that one question, I went on to look at RMF-16 height and the standard is 75- Wayne Arnold: Oh, I'm sorry. Laura DeJohn: ... feet for RMF-16. Wayne Arnold: You're right. I had that printed out right here. Laura DeJohn: Just wanted to correct that. Wayne Arnold: Thank you for correcting me on that. Sharon, right here. Thank you. Pat Lamb: Hi, my name is Pat Lamb. On one of your samples there it said, "No buffer when it faces Palm View Drive." We're right behind that house. We get spotlights all the time and there's not going to be a buffer there towards the river. We're right across the river. Wayne Arnold: Yes. We're talking to staff about that. The way we interpret the code because it's a canal right of way, that there would be no buffer required. Staff has questioned that, and Jim Carr and his group are looking at the buffering required for that section, or if there's going to be a buffer. You can see on the landscape plan that we prepared, there's a right way. You can see that we've got some of the shrubs and buffering adjacent to the south side of the building. Pat Lamb: Yes. But I can tell you on those buildings right now, right over the garages, they have spotlights that come across into the �irst villas we have, and I just think you should consider a buffer on that. Wayne Arnold: We're certainly looking at that. That's a question that staff had that we are addressing. Thank you. Speaker 8: I'm on the Zoom, can you hear me? I have a question. Wayne Arnold: Yes, we can hear you. Speaker 8: When do you plan to demolish the property? Wayne Arnold: They're talking about when they can get the permits to do that. Right now, I don't know what the status of the permit to do that, but it's the intent to take the buildings down sooner than later. Speaker 8: And out of curiosity, why aren't you keeping the current buildings as is? Because they're pretty nice inside. Wayne Arnold: I haven't been inside the building, but the intent here is obviously they're going to expand the footprint of the building and make it to accommodate 41 units, rather than the dozen or so units that are in the current building. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 6 of 15 Speaker 8: I was just curious. I used to live in the building myself. Wayne Arnold: Okay. Thank you. Patrick Lewins: Yes. Sorry. My name is Patrick Lewins. I'm the superintendent of LaPlaya Golf Course, which abuts the proposed development. I have two questions, �irst being, if you could return to the GIS map, please for me? Wayne Arnold: Sure. Patrick Lewins: Keep going. Right. Well go back to the previous one, sorry, the one that's a little bit closer up. This one. So, you have the bridge there and then directly after the bridge, there is a path along the canal bank to the right, which would be going east. We receive ef�luent irrigation water from the county and the pipe is in that area along with the electric service from the main trunk that's on the road that feeds our pump station, which is if you continue on that gravel road further east out of the frame, which is another 200 yards or so. Because we have a building there with pumps and switch gear and all kinds of stuff in there, would that access be preserved - the access that we currently have to that gravel road which runs along the canal there? Speaker 10: I think that's owned by the county. Wayne Arnold: I think I'd like Jim Carr who's the design engineer to try to respond to that, if you don't mind? Jim Carr: Okay. Wayne Arnold: Jim, you can either come up here or you can talk from there. Jim Carr: I got it. Wayne Arnold: It's not advancing again. Jim Carr: The answer is yes that road will be preserved. There's a 30-foot utility easement that Collier County has the rights to. So, there's an access that you mentioned coming off the road and then there's a dirt path that runs back to the gate. Patrick Lewins: So that we have currently a chain link double gate, which was a four-foot double gate that cuts off where our property begins on the property line. So that gate could remain there, or it could remain, or new fencing may be put up. But however, it turns out, the gate will still be there. Right. But as long as in the event that something would happen to our pumps so we could get in there with a truck and drive. It wouldn't be frequent by any stretch of the imagination. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 7 of 15 Jim Carr: But we don't have the ability to construct anything in that 30-foot easement, so it's going to have to remain �lat. It can be paved, it can be grasped, but those structures will be in there. Patrick Lewins: Well, that was the �irst part of my question, which is that's great. Thank you. And then, if you could go to the proposed building? Yeah, the �inished look. This one right here. We have a cart path which runs between those buildings, so there is a southernmost building. The southernmost and the middle building, we have a cart path that runs through where we currently have an easement through there. We also have a water line, like a main line irrigation pipe, that runs directly under that cart path and connects to the other side of the road to feed those holes that are on that side of the road. So, in this proposed... that is currently a straight line between the entrance, correct, to between Palm River Boulevard and heading east. This does not propose that. So, what are we going to do with our water in this scenario here, is how are we going to get the water from the back part of that property to the front basically through the property into the other side? Jim Carr: So yes, we'll need to run that pipe in the same alignment as the new path, so we'd have to relocate the path and the easement as well as the pipe. It could go back under the new path or just outside of it. Patrick Lewins: And that would be... The main concern there is when that's done, obviously we don't have any water. We have to shut the water off. So, you would, I'm assuming, be very proactive in communicating your timetable when all this stuff would happen? Jim Carr: Yes. The new pipe would have to be put in ahead of time and then connected over when the other one's going to be abandoned. Patrick Lewins: That would really probably have to be before you guys even demolished the buildings because the pipe is in-between the buildings. So, I don't know what your process of demo is. Jim Carr: Yes. We can work out those details that we can work with you as we get to that point. Wayne Arnold: All right. Jim Carr: Thank you for bringing that up. Wayne Arnold: Anybody else have a question or comment? Speaker 11: Thank you. So currently, the Collier County School District has a bus stop there on site right over the bridge, so I'm just curious if that's going to be relocated to a different spot? Wayne Arnold: I'll ask Jim to come back [inaudible 00:20:10]. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 8 of 15 Speaker 11: It's a dangerous spot honestly right now, so it'd be almost helpful if they put it in a different direction, but just curious about that. Jim Carr: The bridge that's there now and the sidewalk will remain right there. And as you come over the bridge, the current driveway is in approximately the same location as the proposed one. So, I'm not sure exactly where they sit. I agree it's probably not a great location. Speaker 11: They just hang out on the driveway area at the moment or just on the grass or so. The bus, it's a little tricky because of the intersection. They used to have to go down Palm River Boulevard back up and come down Viking. Now they stop, pick people up, and then go down Viking. Jim Carr: So, the driveway will be in the same location as the existing [inaudible 00:21:06]. Speaker 11: Will there be anything done with that intersection, or everything will remain the same as far as the lanes and everything? Jim Carr: Yes, everything else will remain the same. It'll just be a little bit larger driveway. Still going to have an intersection. And that's Viking Way on the bottom? Speaker 11: Yeah. And then, where the right of way goes for the golf crossing there, that will just have the stripes on the road or will there be any kind of signal or anything for the carts to cross, or a push button or thing or anything like that? Jim Carr: At this time, we don't have any plan to change it. It will realign a little bit just to point it in the same direction as where the new path will be, but it's at the same location. I know currently there's some old signage out there. I think it'll probably need to be replaced with something newer and more up to code. Speaker 11: And then, last question is, who will be managing the... Or you can have a cam that'll be managing the building and the leasing and all that stuff? Or what's that plan look like? Wayne Arnold: I can let Trent come up and answer that if I don't get it right, but the intent is that these are not really going to be leased to Arthrex employees. Arthrex employees will be allowed to live there at minimum 30 days. Sometimes those get extended to six months. They currently own and manage some other properties for this occurring around the county, but those aren't intended to be lease properties to anybody other than their employees at this point. Thank you. Sharon, question. Speaker 12: Do you know if this is going to be before or after the water renewal project that's going on? I know Grady Minor's involved with too, but are they going to do the work there, then demolish everything and then that whole intersection, which is critical going to be- Wayne Arnold: Jim's been coordinating that. Speaker 12: ... a war zone for the next year? 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 9 of 15 Wayne Arnold: Well, that's a multiphase project, the water reclamation program. Jim Carr: Right. Currently, the county's working up in the north end of Palm River and then they think they'll be here in probably two years, maybe year-and-a-half to two years. So, we should have all our work complete by then, but we're keeping that. Keeping in consideration that they will be coming back, they'll probably tear up the roads and the open areas to put in water and sewer. They'll probably put new gravity sewer in and new water mains in, so we are [inaudible 00:23:42] we should be done, but by the time they get into this area. Yes, ma'am? Speaker 13: That order, the order of them should be recently because they're going to do line section, I think starting in the summer, but my concern is that it's just going to be a non-stop construction at the intersection for three years or so. Wayne Arnold: Yeah, we should be done by the time they get into this area. Yes ma'am. Alicia Andrews: My name's Alicia Andrews. We're just seasonal residents in Palm River and these are very frivolous questions I have compared to the other ones. My �irst is, do you have any pictures of what the proposal is that they'll look like aesthetically from the street or the rear, like the frontage of the buildings? Wayne Arnold: No, we don't unfortunately tonight. MHK Architecture is the design architect working on the project. There were some very basic images shown as part of a site plan with the county, but they're not the �inished elevations for the project, so those are still under development. Alicia Andrews: My second question is totally sel�ish, but it sounds like a lot of people obviously would like things not to change because it's really quiet back there. Will there be any amenities that perhaps some of us in the community might be able to use a playground or a pickleball court or the pool? Wayne Arnold: I think the answer is no. Alicia Andrews: I �igured. Wayne Arnold: It's intended for the Arthrex folks that will be residing in the property. Thank you for the questions. Sharon, there's another question right back there. Joanie: Hi. My name is Joanie and I also reside in the Palm River Apartments where the pool is there or the condos, but my question is... I didn't understand the term of the people that are be staying in the units. It's very short-term or it's permanent housing? Wayne Arnold: It is not permanent housing. We call it transitional corporate housing. I wouldn't say it's a standard industry term, but it's a growing term because a lot of businesses are looking to �ind their own employee housing. Naples Community Hospital, when I �irst moved to town, had multiple apartment buildings around the hospital where they put up doctors, nurses, other visiting people 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 10 of 15 for lengths of time. This is intended to be... I mean the shorter-term rental would be maybe a 30-day stay if somebody comes and needs housing. It can be six months. I know in some cases Trent has told us that working with somebody who might be under construction on a home, and they need even more time just to get the �inal CO. So, this is housing for their folks to have as a place to transition into permanent housing. Joanie: It could be anywhere from individuals to families, the whole gamut? Wayne Arnold: Yes, it could be. Joanie: Thank you. Wayne Arnold: Anybody else - questions? We'll let the lady behind you go �irst. Wendy Klopf: Hi, my name's Wendy Klopf and I'm a resident of Flame Vine Drive. I have a couple questions regarding the bus stop like the other gentlemen. Where is the construction traf�ic going to come in and out? Because if the children or the kids waiting for the bus at six, seven, and eight o'clock in the morning are in that driveway, is the construction traf�ic, the workers or the dump trucks, coming in and out the same driveway? Wayne Arnold: Jim, do you have any idea? Do you want to try to address that? We do have two driveways on the site. I think we can help coordinate during construction activities to not con�lict with school bus stuff. Wendy: And also, in the afternoon at two, three, and four o'clock they'll be dropping off students. So, throughout the day, there'll be at least six buses dropping off students and them walking around those areas. So, for their safety and the employees, if they're leaving, obviously they don't want to hit anybody either. Wayne Arnold: Sure. And we may have students that are residing there as well. Wendy: Yes. My other question is, are these units one-bedroom single SROs? Are they two-bedroom, three bedroom? Wayne Arnold: I think it's going to be a full range of those possibilities, just to accommodate the differences and what people's needs will be. Wendy: And then, my third question, so once you demolish, you're going to have multiple trucks trucking in and out the debris out the village? Wayne Arnold: I'm assuming so. I'm not involved in the demolition process, but typically, it's going to not take that long to demolish the buildings that are there, and then they'll be waiting for other permits to catch up so they can stage new construction on site. Wendy: And then the load of the dump trucks is allowable on all the bridges? Wayne Arnold: It should be. I mean, they're all county roads and they should be constructed to a standard that allows dump trucks and other equipment. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 11 of 15 Wendy: Those are my questions. Thank you. Wayne Arnold: All right. Thank you, Wendy. Paul Pauza: Thank you. My name is Paul Pauza and I live directly across the river from this project. I'm concerned with the height of the building. What's the height of the building right now and what's the height of the new proposed building? Wayne Arnold: I don't know the height of the existing buildings exactly. Paul: I think you should know the height of the building. Wayne Arnold: Well, the answer is that the zoning that's in place is RMF-16 zoning. It allows a height of 75 feet as you heard the county con�irm. It doesn't mean that you couldn't rebuild something there today under that same standard, so 75 feet is the height that's allowed there today. Paul: I know, but I do not have any way of telling how big that building is or how tall the building is, and I think that that's some kind of data that you should have available. Now when I look out my back window, if I'm going to look at a 65-foot structure, this building looks like it's going to be maybe 100 feet from my house, or my property and the existing buildings are maybe 200 feet away from my property. So, I'm going to be looking at... and we don't even have a picture of what it's supposed to look like. Wayne Arnold: No, we do not yet. I'm sorry. And this is part of the due review process? Paul: What's the answer? Wayne Arnold: The answer is we don't have an image of the actual building and I don't know the actual height of the building that's there today, but the zoning would allow the building to be demolished and reconstructed at 75 feet. Paul: Right. Now, how many cars of parking do you have underneath the building? Wayne Arnold: Do you know the answer? Kind of a breakdown? Jim Carr: About 30, 38 or so. Paul: And how many are outside the building? Jim Carr: About 45. Paul: Okay. Wouldn't it be nice if they could take the cars and put a little bit more outside parking, and then lower the height of the building? If it goes to be as high as the hospital, 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 12 of 15 I really don't think I would like to look at a building as high as a hospital. And this is not a hospital, this is something that's supposed to be part of a residential neighborhood. Wayne Arnold: The standard that we've proposed for the building height is consistent with what's allowed under the zoning today. It's actually lower by the zone height than we proposed. Paul: Pardon me, sir? Richard Yovanovich: It's actually lower. Wayne Arnold: It's actually lower by the zone height than we've proposed. Paul Pauza: Pardon me, sir. Richard Yovanovich: Right now, we can go to seventy-�ive feet zone, we're only asking for sixty-�ive feet zone. So, we're asking to reduce the height for what we can build today. Paul Pauza: So, the maximum, the absolute top would be lower than sixty-�ive? Will not be above sixty-�ive plus all the other stuff on top? Wayne Arnold: Hang on sir, hang on. Richard Yovanovich: And right now, we could do seventy-�ive plus. Paul Pauza: Sure. Compared to what it is today. Wayne Arnold: Sir, can we get a microphone because this is bouncing all over. Richard Yovanovich: That's my fault. Wayne Arnold: Can we get a microphone because this is bouncing all over the place on the recording. The answer is, from a building height standpoint, I understand the buildings that are there today are not 65 feet. They're not 75 feet. I don't know their exact height, but the zoning code that's in place today would've allowed whomever developed the property initially or now, if Arthrex hadn't come along and proposed a change, to still build a building 75 feet zone height, which means that building would likely exceed 75 feet total height or an actual height as the county measures it. What we've proposed is a zoned height of 65 feet with an actual height of 75 feet, so our maximum height that we're proposing only achieves the zone height that's allowed today. And just for your information, the hospital is over 100 feet tall. Paul Pauza: For sure? Wayne Arnold: Absolute positive. Paul Pauza: Okay. Well, we might have trouble with the helicopters too if it's too high as they're coming into the hospital. One other thing... No, that's okay, thank you very much. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 13 of 15 Wayne Arnold: No, thank you. Alan Findlay: Hello, Alan Findlay also with LaPlaya Golf Club and this follows on with what Wendy was asking earlier on. The demolition timetable, I heard it was imminent. Wayne Arnold: Jim, do you know any more about that? I know that they've been anxious to try to get in and get the demolition permits. I don't know what the schedule is for demolition, but I think that the intent would be to go ahead and get the site cleared, so construction can commence as soon as all the other permits would be secured. Jim Carr: I think, like you said, dependent on obtaining the permit. I don't know what the exact start date would be, but probably sometime this year. Alan Findlay: We prefer the summertime. Jim Carr: That's what I think is planned. Alan Findlay: And then once everything has been approved, what do you anticipate is the construction timetable, and when would it be? Jim Carr: I don't think I know that answer right now, but it does take several months, maybe even a full year, from beginning to end, the whole project. Alan Findlay: For approvals or the construction? Jim Carr: Well, we have to obtain the approvals, which would likely be around the summertime, and so construction may start as soon as then. Alan Findlay: In the summer? Jim Carr: It's all dependent on when we obtain the zoning and the permits. Alan Findlay: Thank you. Jim Carr: Thanks. Speaker 8: Is this project for sure happening or is there still possibilities? Wayne Arnold: I'm sorry, you broke up there, ma'am. Could you repeat that? Speaker 8: Is this project for sure happening or are there still possibilities? Wayne Arnold: The project is a proposal at this point. We have to go through the public hearing process with Collier County. We don't prejudge, but we hope the County Commission will ultimately approve it, but we still have to go through those public hearings. There'll be public input allowed at those two public hearings. Anybody else? Anything else? I see a lady in the back, Sharon. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 14 of 15 Alicia Andrews: Just so I understand it clearly, it's not happening for sure, but we probably don't stand a chance that it won't happen. Correct? Wayne Arnold: Well, I don't think I would say it that way. Public input is sought for a reason, and you're appointed of�icials with the County Planning Commission and staff and the Board of County Commissioners, they appreciate public input. They work really hard to try to �ind solutions and if there are things that can be accommodated in your request, they'll ask us if we can do those and hopefully, we can. If we can't, we honestly tell you we can't do that like allowing you to use the pool is probably an answer that's a non-starter, but just a hunch. Alicia Andrews: We could show up and- Wayne Arnold: You absolutely can. You'll get notice for public hearings, and you are encouraged to show up. If you can't, you can send an email or write a letter. Speaker 12: This is the only NIM, right? Wayne Arnold: This is the only required Neighborhood Information Meeting, yes. Speaker 12: Is it possible to get when there is a �inal design, or at least a nearer design, to have that rendering shared out or distributed? Or "Here it is today, here's what it looks like today and here's what it's going to look like," so we can see that and maybe these people can see it from their point of view, their house too, so they get a realistic view? Wayne Arnold: Yeah. I think our goal will be by the time we have our Planning Commission Public Hearing, that we'll have some realistic images of what this building is intended to look like. Speaker 12: That'd great. Patrick Lewins: All right. Patrick Lewins again - LaPlaya Golf Club. I heard you say, or somebody say demolition was imminent. Is that the case? Wayne Arnold: I think the intent to get the permit to demolish is underway. Patrick Lewins: My only... or our only concern that we have is with that cart path that we have going through there, there's people driving through there. What accommodations would be made during that process to safely get our people from one side to the other? Wayne Arnold: I would recommend that you all exchange contact information, you and Jim Carr. Patrick Lewins: Okay. Jim Carr: Yeah, we can help coordinate that. The contractor will pull that permit and do the work, but I know what you're saying. You've got a pathway people run through there, you've got push [inaudible 00:37:51] on both sides. You don't want to disturb. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) Page 15 of 15 Patrick Lewins: That was the thing with the water too. As soon as you put a track hoe on that car path, that water line is destroyed. So, all that kind of stuff, just not that one day a bulldozer shows up out of the blue and all of a sudden, we're cut off there. Jim Carr: Understood. Wayne Arnold: Any other comments/questions? Was there another question back there, Sharon, or no? No? All right. Well, if not, I appreciate everybody coming out and, like you said, contact information, I'll put it back up again if you... This has the contact information for our �irm where we'll be updating the information and then it's got Parker Klopf's contact information and Laura DeJohn's contact information, so feel free to reach out. Any of us will get you anything that we've submitted to the county and our website will be updated as soon as we resubmit to the county as well. So, thank you everybody. Appreciate you all coming out. 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) PETITIONS:PL20230011318 - PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA); ANDPL20230011319 - PALM RIVER CORPORATE HOUSING RPUD REZONE January 10, 2024, Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Project information and a copy of this presentation can be found on our website: GRADYMINOR.COM/PLANNING/ 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing PROJECT TEAM: •Palm River Accommodations, LLC – Applicant •Trent Lewis, MBA, LEED AP, Director of Facilities & Corporate infrastructure – Arthrex, Inc. •Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., Land Use Attorney – Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. •D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Professional Planner – Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. •James A. Carr, P.E., Professional Engineer – Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. •James M. Banks, PE, Traffic Engineer – JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. *Please note, all information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. 2 INTRODUCTION 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing 3 LOCATION MAP ZONED RMF-16 ZONED RMF-6 ZONED RMF-16 ZONED RSF-3 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) DESIGNATION: Existing: Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict Proposed: Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict ZONING: Existing: RMF-16 Proposed: Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD PROPOSED REQUEST: •Modify the FLU map to add the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential Subdistrict •Rezone from the RMF-16, Zoning District to the Palm River Corporate Housing Residential PUD •To allow a maximum of 41 multi-family dwelling units. PROJECT INFORMATION 4 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing 5 FUTURE LANDUSE MAP - EXISTING 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing 6 FUTURE LANDUSE MAP - PROPOSED Proposed Subdistrict Language: 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing 7 PROPOSED MASTER PLANSITE SUMMARYTOTAL SITE AREA: 2.06± ACRESRESIDENTIAL: 1.49± ACRES (73%)BUFFERS: 0.17± ACRES (8%)DRAINAGE, UTILITY, ROAD EASEMENTS 0.40± ACRES (19%) RESIDENTIAL: MAXIMUM 41 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITSOPEN SPACE: 2REQUIRED:60%PROVIDED:50%PRESERVE:REQUIRED: 0± ACRES (0 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X 25%)PROVIDED: 0± ACRES DEVIATIONS:1.RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04, TABLE 17,PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILYDWELLINGS2.RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.07.02.G.1, OPEN SPACEREQUIREMENTS 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing 8 CONCEPTUAL SITE RENDERING 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing 9 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE RENDERING 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing 10 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing NEXT STEPS •File resubmittal •Hearing Notices mailed to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. •Hearing sign posted on property advertising hearing dates. •HEARING DATES: •CCPC – TBD, 9:00 a.m., Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd floor BCC Chamber, Naples, FL, 34112 •BCC – TBD, 9:00 a.m., Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd floor BCC Chamber, Naples, FL, 34112 11 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing Project information and a copy of this presentation can be found online: WWW.GRADYMINOR.COM/PLANNING Collier County Growth Management Department (GMD) Public Portal: CVPORTAL.COLLIERCOUNTYFL.GOV/CITYVIEWWeb Petition Numbers: PL20230011318 and PL20230011319 CONTACTS: •Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.:Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician; sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or 239.947.1144 •Collier County Staff: Parker Klopf; Parker.Klopf@colliercountyfl.gov, (239) 252-2471Laura DeJohn; Laura.DeJohn@colliercountyfl.gov, (239) 252-5587 PROJECT DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION 12 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Att C - NIM Docs (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing 1 LauraDeJohnVEN From:Elysia Andrews <andrewsfamily1989@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:42 PM To:LauraDeJohnVEN Subject:Arthrex Employee Transitional Housing Project EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Laura, Thank you so much for your time and consideration last week as I expressed my concerns about the above mentioned project in Palm River. As you suggested, I am writing this email in hopes of being heard and voicing my concerns on how this development will impact our community. Let me start by saying that my husband and I are property owne rs in Palm River. Our condo sits along the canal adjoining the Arthrex project. I am a nature lover and frequently paddle the waterway. I continue to be amazed at the abundance of birds, otters, alligators, and turtles that share their home with us. It is truly a sanctuary. One of my biggest concerns is the impact that higher buildings, bright lights, noise, and traffic will have on the environment and habitat of birds (such as the endangered wood stork) and other wildlife that I regularly see in my backyard. Does Arthrex have a plan to minimally impact the land here, as well as preserve existing trees and vegetation that border the area? Is there an option for lighting that would be less bright or directed downward so it doesn’t look like a Walmart parking lot as we watch the sunset? I certainly hope these details will be given thought as the demolition and construction go forward. I also worry about how this proposed five story, multi-unit building and parking will fit in with the quiet community of Palm River. In some respects, it is a throwback to old Florida here. Several of the structures date back to the 60’s, including the iconic Fairways Inn. Many of the homes (including ours) are at least 50 years old, and none higher than two stories, except the existing apartments. Having the prestigious LaPlaya golf course within our borders, the neighbors are used to a dark night sky and tranquil views. We hate the thought of losing that. Arthrex has yet to reveal any of the elevation views of the buildings. Will they consider trying to build something that will be aesthetically comparable to the surrounding architecture? Otherwise, the entire ambience of our community will be spoiled. I do understand that change is inevitable and the need for housing is imperative. However, please take into consideration how a site of this magnitude will affect us and all who inhabit Palm River. I respectfully request the planning and zoning board require Arthrex to preserve and enhance the serenity we now enjoy in our lovely neighborhood. Most sincerely, Elysia Andrews 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Att D - Emails from public and School District (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 1 LauraDeJohnVEN From:Lockhart, Amy <lockha@collierschools.com> Sent:Friday, March 1, 2024 2:02 PM To:LauraDeJohnVEN Cc:Lozano, Beth Subject:FW: Palm River area EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hi Laura. The CCPS bus stop is just south of the southeast corner of Palm River Blvd and Viking Way (see aerial below depicting the bus stop location with a red stop symbol). I have confirmed that the driveway of the subject property is not the stop. School buses do not stop at intersections and the driveway is at the intersection. Parents may be parking at the driveway of the subject property to pick up children at the stop but the driveway is not the bus stop. While it is accurate that the bus stop cannot be moved due to turn around problems along Palm River north of the intersection with Viking its location is actually south of the area of concern. Hope this helps. The applicant may want to contact our Transportation Department if they are concerned. In addition, if they expect school age children they may want to provide a bus stop location as an amenity. If they wish to do so we encourage them to contact our CCPS Transportation to site it at the best location. Amy Lockhart Planner, Long Range Collier County Public Schools p: 239.377.0254 ● e: lockha@collierschools.com Visit us online: www.collierschools.com Pursuant to School Board policy and administrative procedures, this e-mail system is the property of the School District of Collier County and to be used for official business only. In addition, all users are cautioned that messages sent through this system are subject to the Public Records Law of the State of Florida and also to review by the school system. There should be no expectation of privacy. From: Lozano, Beth <lozanb@collierschools.com> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 10:24 AM To: Lockhart, Amy <lockha@collierschools.com> Cc: De Teso, Don (Donald) <detesd@collierschools.com>; Lammers, Daniel <LammerDa@collierschools.com>; Smith, Shelly <smiths18@collierschools.com>; Cruz, Zuri (Zurisadai) <cruzz@collierschools.com>; Martinez, Sandy 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Att D - Emails from public and School District (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 2 <MartinSa@collierschools.com> Subject: RE: Palm River area Good morning Amy, After going to this area, it does not look safe for the buses to proceed further north on Palm River Blvd. We will have to keep the stop location where it is now, Palm River Blvd & Viking Way. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thank you, Beth Lozano Supervisor, Transportation Routing, Admin Supervisor Collier County Public Schools p: 239.377.0609 ● e: lozanb@collierschools.com Visit us online: www.collierschools.com Pursuant to School Board policy and administrative procedures, this e-mail system is the property of the School District of Collier County and to be used for official business only. In addition, all users are cautioned that messages sent through this system are subject to the Public Records Law of the State of Florida and also to review by the school system. There should be no expectation of privacy. From: Lozano, Beth <lozanb@collierschools.com> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 8:00 AM To: Martinez, Sandy <MartinSa@collierschools.com> Cc: De Teso, Don (Donald) <detesd@collierschools.com>; Lammers, Daniel <LammerDa@collierschools.com>; Smith, Shelly <smiths18@collierschools.com>; Cruz, Zuri (Zurisadai) <cruzz@collierschools.com>; Lockhart, Amy <lockha@collierschools.com> Subject: RE: Palm River area Good morning, Has anyone been able to look at this area yet? I have to know the answer before the end of the day on Monday, 03-04-24. Thank you, Beth Lozano 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Att D - Emails from public and School District (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 3 Supervisor, Transportation Routing, Admin Supervisor Collier County Public Schools p: 239.377.0609 ● e: lozanb@collierschools.com Visit us online: www.collierschools.com Pursuant to School Board policy and administrative procedures, this e-mail system is the property of the School District of Collier County and to be used for official business only. In addition, all users are cautioned that messages sent through this system are subject to the Public Records Law of the State of Florida and also to review by the school system. There should be no expectation of privacy. From: Lozano, Beth <lozanb@collierschools.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 8:22 AM To: Martinez, Sandy <MartinSa@collierschools.com> Cc: De Teso, Don (Donald) <detesd@collierschools.com>; Lammers, Daniel <LammerDa@collierschools.com>; Smith, Shelly <smiths18@collierschools.com>; Cruz, Zuri (Zurisadai) <cruzz@collierschools.com> Subject: Palm River area Good morning, We received a call stating the buildings in the area circled in red are going to be torn down and apartment buildings will be built. The stop location for the students that live north of that area is Palm River Blvd & Viking Way. We were asked if we can re-locate the stop (just during construction) to one of the locations highlighted. Will you please go to this location and let us know if it is safe for a bus to go to this area? 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Att D - Emails from public and School District (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 4 Thank you, Beth Lozano Supervisor, Transportation Routing, Admin Supervisor Collier County Public Schools p: 239.377.0609 ● e: lozanb@collierschools.com Visit us online: www.collierschools.com Pursuant to School Board policy and administrative procedures, this e-mail system is the property of the School District of Collier County and to be used for official business only. In addition, all users are cautioned that messages sent through this system are subject to the Public Records Law of the State of Florida and also to review by the school system. There should be no expectation of privacy. 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Att D - Emails from public and School District (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 1 LauraDeJohnVEN From:LauraDeJohnVEN Sent:Thursday, January 11, 2024 1:24 PM To:'tpcannonatty@gmail.com' Cc:Parker Klopf Subject:Zoning Map (Palm River Blvd) Attachments:Zoning Map - 8523s.pdf; 4.02.01 ___Dimensional_Standards_for_Principal_Uses_in_Base_Zoning_Districts.docx Mr. Cannon, Following up on your question at the Neighborhood Information Meeting last evening, below is a view of the area zoned RMF-16 (residential multi-family 16). The standard zoning map attached also shows this. The Code section identifying the maximum building height of 75 feet for the RMF-16 district is attached. Let me know if you have any further questions. 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: Att D - Emails from public and School District (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) RMF-6 GC V RMF-16 RMF-12 GC RMF-16 GC RSF-3 RTPALM VIEW DRIVEIMMOKALEE ROAD C.R. - 846 F E D C B A 4 144 1 3 3 33 2 3 34 1 4 12 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 DR.V I E WPALM PIPER BOULEVARD CYPRESS WAY EASTPALM RIVER BOULEVARDCORAL VINE DRIVEFLAME VINE DRIVECROWN DRIVEPALM RIVER BOULEVARDCYPRESS WAY WESTOLD TAMIAMI TRAILVIKING WAY O A K W O O D C O U R TDRIVE OAKWOODDRIVEFORESTWOODWESTWOOD DRIVESHARWOOD DRIVESHARWOOD DRIVE CONDOPINES IISPANISH CONDO LAKEVIEW PHASE 1SHARONDALE CONDO MANORMONTEGO MANORANDREWS CONDOGARDENSCYPRESS PARCEL APHASE 2 PHASE 1 CONDOWEDGEMONT CONDOROYALPALM PHASE 1CONDORIVER ROYAL 23 23 PALM RIVER GOLF COURSE C O C O H ATCH EE RIVER 2 NORTH NAPLESMEDICAL PARK C-1 V 3 PUD RSF-3 H O R S E C R E E K LAKE SHARWOOD 1 2 34567891011121314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 3 45678910111213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 222324252627 28 29 489 490 519 520 429 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 535B535A535536537538539540541542543 576577578 600601602 627628629 756757758759760761762763764765766767768769770771772773774 775 776 777847 848 849 850851 852 853 854 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 192021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 A BC D E F A B C D E COURTWOODCONDO COUNTRY CLUBGARDENSCONDO THE HACIENDASCONDO A B C D E F G HIJ K L M N O P Q R T U V W 1 2 3 4 PIPER'S POINTCONDO PEBBLE CONDOSHORES NAPLES KEEP CONDO PHASES I-IV MAPLELEAF VILLAS CONDO 1,4 A B B A F E D C F F A B C D E E PU D 5,7 PIPER BLVD. MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER GARDENS LAKESIDEAPT. SUB. 55 5 5 LOT 5LOT LOT4 LOT2 LOT3 TRACTL-1 1 6 66 M EDIC AL BLVD 6V SAWGRASS COURT 7 3 7 7TRACT DPIPER BOULEVARD 8V 8 88 8V9 855 846 778 TRACT P-2 9 9 9 9 CPUDBRB DEVELOPMENT 10 11SV PALMVIEW CT. SV12 BD 13 LAST REVISION: ZONING ___________________ OTHER ___________________SUBDIVISON INDEX ATTEST___________________________CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TWP 48S RNG 25E SEC(S) 23 SO 1/2 MAP NUMBER: BY___________________________CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION$8523S 8526N8522S 8524S8523N The Historic/Archaeological Probability Maps are the officialCounty source designating historic or archaeologic resources.NO. NAME P.B. Pg. 1 PALM RIVER ESTATES UNIT 1 3 902 PALM RIVER ESTATES UNIT 2 3 963 PALM RIVER ESTATES UNIT 4 8 69-704 PALM RIVER ESTATES UNIT 7 12 28-305 LAKESIDE APARTMENTS SUBDIVISION 26 216 NORTH NAPLES MEDICAL PARK 26 46-477 SAWGRASS OF NAPLES 30 24-258 QJR SUBDIVISION 36 329 HORSE CREEK ESTATES 41 74-8110 ZONING NOTES1 10-9-90 R-90-10 90-772 5-14-91 V-91-6 91-3813 3-24-92 V-92-3 92-1894 8-8-95 PUD-90-10(1) 95-455 9-12-95 PUD-95-4 95-476 4-28-98 V-98-4 98-1157 9-22-98 PUD-95-4(1) 98-828 1-26-99 V-98-21 99-869 1-14-03 VA-02-AR-2389 03-2410 6-20-06 PUDZ-05-AR-8561 06-3411 1-27-09 SV-06-AR-10482 09-2312 10-20-17 SV-17-1467 HEX.17-2913 9-24-21 BDE-PL-20-1108 HEX 21-39THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THEOFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTEDBY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-41 OF THECOUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004,AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISIONINDEX REFERENCED HEREON. NO. NAME P.B. Pg. 11121314151617181920 0 400 SCALE10/4/20219.A.6.e Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: Att D - Emails from public and School District (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 1 LauraDeJohnVEN From:kenoehler@comcast.net Sent:Sunday, January 14, 2024 12:36 PM To:LauraDeJohnVEN Subject:Arthrex project in Palm River EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Laura I was recently made aware of the Arthrex project at 280 Palm River Blvd (PL20230011319) to convert an existing apartment building to a 41 unit building for Arthrex new hires. I was not aware of the public meeting recently held and I would like to be invited to the next one. As the president of the Palm River Homeowners Civic Association, I will get many questions regarding this project. Personally, I think Arthrex is an outstanding company and the project appears commendable. I doubt the construction will be as impactful as the new bridge construction or the infrastructure ongoing currently in Palm River. I look forward to being more involved in your communication efforts here in Palm River. Thank you. Ken Oehler 239-537-5398 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: Att D - Emails from public and School District (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting 2024-09-03 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting 2024-09-03 (29783 : PL20230011319 Palm River Corporate Housing RPUD) 09/20/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.7 Doc ID: 29907 Item Summary: **This item was continued from the 8/15/2024 CCPC Meeting to the 9/20/2024 CCPC Meeting and further continued indefinitely*** PL20220005195- Hope Home II Institutional Sub-district -3150 62nd Street SW - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners proposing an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Urban Golden Gate Estates sub-element of the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Element and Urban Golden Gate Estates future land use map and map series to create the Hope Home II Institutional sub-district by changing the land use designation from Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district to Estates-Commercial District, Hope Home II Institutional sub- district to allow a recovery residence limited to 27 residents and three resident supervisors, and directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce. The subject property is 4.47± acres and located at 3150 62nd Street SW in section 29, township 49 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Parker Klopf Planner III] (Companion to Item PUDZ-PL20220005096) Meeting Date: 09/20/2024 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 09/12/2024 2:57 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 09/12/2024 2:57 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch GMD Approver Completed 09/12/2024 3:01 PM Growth Management Community Development Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 09/13/2024 4:15 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 09/20/2024 9:00 AM 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 1076 09/20/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.8 Doc ID: 29908 Item Summary: **This item was continued from the 8/15/2024 CCPC Meeting to the 9/20/2024 CCPC Meeting and further continued indefinitely** PL20220005096 Hope Home II CFPUD -3150 62nd Street S.W.- The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), 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 Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Hope Home II CFPUD, to allow a recovery residence limited to 27 residents and three resident supervisors, and a single-family dwelling/family care facility, for property located at 3150 62nd Street S.W. in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.47± acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III] (Companion to Item GMPA-PL20220005195, Hope Home II Subdistrict) Meeting Date: 09/20/2024 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 09/12/2024 3:00 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 09/12/2024 3:00 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch Department review Completed 09/12/2024 3:01 PM Growth Management Community Development Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 09/13/2024 4:15 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 09/20/2024 9:00 AM 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 1077