Loading...
CCPC Agenda 12/19/2024COLLIER COUNTY Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 December 19, 2024 9:00 AM Joseph Schmitt, Environmental - Chairman Chuck Schumacher - Vice-Chair Paul Shea, Environmental - Secretary Randy Sparrazza Charles (Chap) Colucci Michelle L. McLeod Mike Petscher 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. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes 5.A. November 21, 2024, CCPC Meeting Minutes (2024-2240) 6. BCC Report - Recaps Page 1 of 702 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings 9.A. PL20230004408 - FPL Summit Substation Communication Tower (CU) - 191 Weber Boulevard North - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow a 150-foot tall monopole communications tower that deviates from the required 150-foot separation from residential property by providing an 84-foot separation from residential property to the north and that deviates from the requirement to screen the tower facility with a wall or fence to allow no wall or fence around the tower on lands zoned Estates (E) and designated Residential Estates Subdistrict within the Rural Golden Gate Estate's Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the Collier County Growth Management Plan pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.12 and 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code, located on approximately 613+ square feet of a 4.99+ acre tract located at 191 Weber Boulevard North, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (2024-2037) 9.B. PL20230008640 - East Trail Mixed Use (PUDZ) - Tamiami Trail E and Greenway Road - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district, to allow a maximum of 300 dwelling units, of which 22 units shall be reserved for residents at or below 50% of the County’s area median income, and 9 units shall be reserved for residents at or below 80% of the County’s area median income located at ±441 feet west of the intersection of Tamiami Trail E and Greenway Road and is comprised of five parcels, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of ±24.41 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Sean Sammon, Planner III] (Companion Item to GMPA - PL20230008643) (2024-2055) 9.C. PL20230008643 Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict (GMPA)- 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 and map series by changing the land use designation of property from Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict to Urban, Mixed Use District, Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict, To allow construction of 300 multi-family rental units with affordable housing and up to 64,000 square feet of gross floor area of Commercial Intermediate, C-3 Zoning District Uses, and directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department Of Commerce. The subject property is located north of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 441 feet west of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 24.41± acres. [Coordinator: Parker Klopf, Planner III] (Companion item to PUDZ-PL20230008640) (2024-2131) 10. Old Business 11. New Business Page 2 of 702 12. Public Comments 13. Adjourn Page 3 of 702 12/19/2024 Item # 5.A ID# 2024-2240 November 21, 2024, CCPC Meeting Minutes ATTACHMENTS: 1. 11-21-2024 CCPC Meeting Minutes Pending Approval Page 4 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 1 of 51 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 21, 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: Chuck Schumacher, Acting Chairman Joe Schmitt, Chairman (attending remotely) Paul Shea, Secretary Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher Michael Petscher Michelle L. McLeod Charles "Chap" Colucci 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 Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I Oscar Alonso, Specialist III PENDING APPROVALPage 5 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 2 of 51 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Good morning, welcome. Everybody please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. Thank you, everyone, for attending our November 21st, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Is Chair Schmitt on the phone? MS. PADRON: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: He is? Chair Schmitt will be attending by audio today. I will need a motion to approve that, please. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So motioned. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Excellent. Secretary Shea, roll call, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Schmitt, he's here. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: He's here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schumacher? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have everyone here, and a majority. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. Everybody in attendance. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. PENDING APPROVALPage 6 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 3 of 51 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We have no changes to the agenda today. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. Next item, Planning Commission absences. I think our -- when is our next meetings, two meetings? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The December 5th meeting we canceled at the last -- there was no petitions on it, and the Planning Commission -- so it's December 19th is the next meeting. COMMISSIONER SHEA: December 5th is canceled? MR. BOSI: December 5th is -- you guys canceled that last meeting. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I didn't hear it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I didn't remember that. MR. BOSI: We did. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. BOSI: Well, you guys did. The question we have for you, after the 19th of December, the next meeting scheduled is January 2nd. Does the Planning Commission want to hold a meeting on January 2nd or -- right now we only have one tentative petition that is scheduled for -- potentially scheduled for it. We can move that to the January 16th item if the Planning Commission does decide that they -- it's too close to the holidays -- and because of travel, things like that, I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: For one -- for one petition, it doesn't seem like it's worth pushing the holiday, does it? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. Do you know how many so far are even tentative for the 16th? MR. BOSI: For the 16th, I don't think we have any right now that are scheduled. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Sounds like we have one. MR. BOSI: Yes. Yes. If that's the -- if that's the will, it sounds like the -- but it would take a motion for the Planning Commission to officially cancel the January 2nd meeting. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Let's start with the December 19th meeting. Is -- can everyone attend the 19th, or is anyone going to be -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Good. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: -- traveling prior to the Christmas holiday? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I'll be traveling; Colucci. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Colucci will be out. Anyone else? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So we should have a quorum. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck, I don't know if you can hear me. I'll be there in December. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Chair Schmitt will be here. Okay, great. So we'll have one absence. And then the January 2nd meeting, can we get a motion to cancel that meeting? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So motioned to cancel January 2nd, 2025, CCPC meeting and move the proposed agenda item to the January 16th meeting. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Can I get a second? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. PENDING APPROVALPage 7 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 4 of 51 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Excellent. ***Next item will be approval of minutes, November 7th, 2024, meeting minutes. Everybody had a chance to review them? If there's any edits or changes, please say so. If not, I'll take a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So motion to approve the current meeting minutes as they stand. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Can I have a second, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Excellent. ***Next Item, BCC report. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On November 12th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment with companion Growth Management Plan amendment and the development order amendment for the Tollgate PUD. That's where they were adding some -- or converting a hotel into some rental apartments. That was approved on their summary agenda. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. ***Chairman's report. Chairman Schmitt, did you have anything you'd like to report, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing to report. My apologies to my colleagues. I'm sorry, I'm en route to Miami. I will definitely be there for the next meeting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: If anything, I feel bad for you having to drive to Miami. All right. Consent agenda, I don't think we have anything on consent. MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No, sir. Great. ***All right. Moving right into public hearings, the first one, PL20220006931, Metro South. Please rise to testify. Please be sworn in, all those who wish to speak on the matter. 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.) PENDING APPROVALPage 8 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 5 of 51 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning, sir. The floor is yours. MR. COPPER: Good morning, everyone. My name is Brandon Copper with Davidson Engineering, and I'm here to present the Metro South mixed-use project. In attendance, we have myself along with the property owner and developer, Mr. Daniel Dufault. So the site's located at 3010 Tamiami Trail, approximately 500 feet from the Bayshore Drive intersection with the East Trail. For those of us that have been in town for a while, we might recognize it as the old Pizza Hut site. The underlying zoning is C-3, which allows for a variety of commercial uses, as well as a small portion of it is MH, for mobile home. We're seeking the MUP which allows up to 12 units per acre for this site at .64 acres. That's a total of eight units. To get the eight units, we're requesting seven bonus density units as well as utilizing the one unit that we're entitled to by right. We want to acknowledge that through the limited density bonus pool allocation, we will be contributing 5 percent of the engineer's opinion of probable cost at the time of SDP. Surrounding uses: To the west and north we have some commercial; to the south and east, we have the existing mobile home park; and just beyond that we have more commercial. Our proposed development will include the existing real estate office that's freshly renovated. It's about 2,500 square feet. The proposed mixed-use structure is five floors. First floor being about 1,300 square feet of commercial use. Floors 2 through 5 above will be residential as well as a rooftop with a pool and sundeck. Per the LDC, we want to recognize that we do conform with this particular code that does not allow more than one use to take up more than 80 percent of the gross floor area. For our development, well have about 25 percent of the commercial use and then 75 residential. The criteria for the MUP approval, one states that no less than 60 percent of the commercial uses shall provide retail, office, or personal services. We're providing 100 percent of our commercial uses to be office. Number 2 is no more than 25 percent of the residential uses can be beyond a gate. We're not proposing any sort of gates, and the second stipulation of that is residential uses must be constructed along with the commercial component, and that is exactly what we're planning to do. We're not going to phase this project whatsoever. Item No. 3, mixed-use projects shall connect to local streets and adjoining neighborhoods. We're proposing multiple sidewalk connections for pedestrians on the existing sidewalk along Tamiami Trail, as well as our driveway connection along Tamiami Trail. There is a private drive to the east of our project, which we do not have access to connect to. And No. 4, the commercial component of the mixed-use project must be located internal to the site as to not promote strip development, and that's, as you will see, exactly what we have proposed. Items No. 5 and 6 don't apply to our site just because of our site being less than five acres in size. Here's our proposed site plan. To the east you'll see the existing about 2,500-square-foot commercial structure, and to the west you'll see our proposed building. What you're seeing in purple is the ground floor structure with some covered parking as well as covered walkways. The kind of crosshatch there is our commercial component there, so you have about four units inside the primary one along with a secondary fifth unit to the south there. PENDING APPROVALPage 9 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 6 of 51 Our buffering plan, we're meeting the code minimum LDC for buffering. So on the west side you have a 10-foot Type A, on the north you have a 20-foot Type D, and on the east and south sides you have a 15-foot-wide Type B with a wall, and I went ahead and highlighted that wall for you. Oh, here we go. Here's our typical floor plans. Starting from the right, you'll see our ground floor, which is the commercial component, and then to the left you'll see the typical floor plan for the residential units above. Again, two units per floor, four floors, for a total of eight. Here's our rooftop plan. You see an amenity, such as a pool, sundeck, a mechanical room, as well as an elevator and stairwells. And here is the elevation section of the building. At this point in time I think it would be good to recognize that we are seeking one deviation, and that is for the first floor of the structure. The code requires it to be 14 feet tall. We're requesting that to be down to 12 feet. And what we did is we took that extra height and distributed it amongst the residential floors above. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: So would you be going, like, 10-foot ceilings versus 8-, is that what you're doing, or 9-foot? MR. COPPER: Right now they're 10-foot-9 from floor to ceiling. So I would imagine you would need room for some mechanical equipment beyond that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good. MR. COPPER: And at this time, I'd like to open up the floor for any questions or discussion. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Just a quick question, if you can back up to the floor plans that showed -- right there. Is there a pedestrian walk-through between, shall we say, the commercial building on the -- what would that be? -- north and the commercial on the south; is that what that hashmark -- MR. COPPER: Correct. The hashmark is kind of the walkway area that you're seeing there. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. COPPER: So you can essentially transition from one floor to where you park to the opposite side, to that stairwell, to get out through the sidewalk that way as well. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: That's what I figured from the front elevation, but thanks for the clarification. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Vice Chair? Vice Chair, I have a question. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead, Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If I may, the plan certainly indicates that the existing commercial building will remain. Now, with this rezoning, I just want to make clear for the record that at some time, based if the zoning is approved, you could have the option of razing that building and constructing a new building. Would there be any prohibition against that? Because you indicate that the -- you indicate that the existing building is remaining, but the zoning certainly allows for the use again, and I just want to make it clear that at some time, if the existing zoning -- if it's approved, you may -- you could have the option to raze that building and build something comparable in that same area; is that correct? PENDING APPROVALPage 10 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 7 of 51 MR. COPPER: I believe -- if you don't mind -- that we are limited to a certain amount of square footage, which is clearly defined in the MUP rezone. So while I think that potentially in the future if the building needs to be removed and replaced, that we would be limited to that amount of square footage; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I assumed. And I'll wait for Mike to answer. But, I mean, that's the old Pizza Hut building, and it's certainly -- it's probably been up for well over 35, 40 years. And I just want to make sure that our zoning staff makes it clear to the public that there are potentially -- or there is a potential that there could be a change, as long as you stay within the limits. Go ahead, Mike. Sorry. MR. BOSI: No, sorry -- sorry, Chair. Mike Bosi again, Planning and Zoning director. The applicant and Joe are correct; Chairman Schmitt is correct. They'll be able to rebuild the building within the -- within the square foot it allowed by this MUP. MR. COPPER: And our client, to that point, has just made a significant investment in renovating that structure, so I don't believe that that is on your mind right now. He has confirmed "no." CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That was an exhausted "no." MR. DUFAULT: Yeah. MR. COPPER: It looks beautiful. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's okay. That was one of my questions, too, what the plans were for the existing building, whether it was going to be razed or re-purposed, and it sounds like there's no immediate plans for it right now, I guess. MR. COPPER: No. And a part of his renovation, he did flood-proof it, so it meets current code. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And then another question I had, these units, are they owner-occupied, or are they going to be rental units? MR. DUFAULT: Owner occupied. MR. COPPER: Owner occupied. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. The only concern I have on this -- I really like this project, and I especially liked that it was unanimously voted by the CRA to recommend support of the project. But there's only one ingress and egress from 41. I wish that -- and I had talked to staff about this -- some sort of secondary access point to the property. And then in looking at this, on the east side, that's where your existing building is right now. But would there have been a way of allowing for different access on that side instead of just one in and out from 41? MR. COPPER: So are you speaking on just south of the exist building, the east? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So next door to it, it's -- River Drive, I believe, is on -- MR. COPPER: Correct. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- the one side. MR. COPPER: Yeah. And that's the private drive, so we don't really have an opportunity to connect to the private drive. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And then I know that the gas station to the west is closed, and perhaps maybe in the future if there was something there, maybe to tie in. Just my PENDING APPROVALPage 11 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 8 of 51 thoughts. MR. COPPER: It was a consideration. I mean, we just didn't find any way to make it, like -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Work at this time? MR. COPPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Yeah, those are my only questions. MR. COPPER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any public speakers on this matter? MR. ALONSO: Can you hear me? Perfect. No, no public speakers this morning. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No public speakers. Okay. That being said, I will close this section -- go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: And just from a staff report perspective, as contained in the staff report, staff is supporting. This is the type of mixed-use project that the Bayshore CRA would like to see more of, so we're fully supportive. And I did want to call out that the applicant made the statement at the very beginning that they were going to provide a 5 percent contribution of the engineer's probable cost. What that is is the Bayshore has a public-realm improvement fund, and the public-realm improvement fund says that if you're going to utilize any of the bonus densities within the density pool that you have to contribute 5 percent of the cost of your overall engineer's probable cost of your project to the Bayshore public realm fund, and that's for accumulating revenues to provide for additional public-realm improvements, such as streetscapes, public art, various street lighting, sidewalk improvements, a variety of infrastructure projects that are intended to help raise the overall built environment within the -- within the CRA. So another significant public benefit that's associated with the proposal. I just wanted to call that out. But as I said, staff is recommending approval, and any questions that you may have for staff, we'd be more than happy to address them. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What's the probable cost? MR. COPPER: We haven't got that far yet. MR. BOSI: Those are provided at the Site Development Plan, I believe. When they get to Ms. Cook's shop, they will have the probable costs. But it's unknown right now. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But it's the total cost of the project? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. That being said, Board discussion? Any comments? Questions? No? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: If there is no comments or questions for the petitioner or for staff, I'll entertain a motion to approve or disapprove. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'd like to move forward with a motion to approve this amendment. I've got to get the number. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: PL -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: PL20220006931 with no special -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Alterations. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah, no special comments or alterations to the submitted plan. PENDING APPROVALPage 12 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 9 of 51 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. I'll take a second. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Motion approved unanimously. Thank you. MR. COPPER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Before I close this matter, I do have one matter of housekeeping. I do need an ex parte disclosure as to this agenda item please, starting with Ms. McLeod. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Visited the site and reviewed the petition with the staff. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Viewed staff reports. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff reports only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff reports only. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Staff reports only. MS. LOCKHART: Staff reports only. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I also reviewed -- Chair Schmitt, do you have any ex parte? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff reports only. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Myself, staff reports and conversation with Mike Bosi. Great. That matter's now closed. ***Moving on to the next item with PL20230016211. It's the 5396 Myrtle Lane, which has a companion item, PL20230016212, which is a PUD RL for 5396 Myrtle Lane. Starting with the Planning Commission, ex parte disclosures, starting with Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Visited the site, I reviewed the petition with the staff, and I spoke with Jacob Winge, the past president of the East Naples Civic and Commerce group. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PESTCHER: I visited the site, I reviewed the staff reports, and I had a conversation with Richard Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff reports and conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Secretary Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff reports. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Staff reports. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Chair Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For me, staff reports, and I spoke with Rich PENDING APPROVALPage 13 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 10 of 51 Yovanovich as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Staff report, conversation with Mike Bosi, and a telephone conversation with Rich Yovanovich. All right. Whoever will be speaking on this matter, please stand to be sworn in. Thanks, Rich. I didn't know to do that. I appreciate the action, though. 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 SCHUMACHER: Good morning, sir. MR .YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today is Mr. Starkey, the representative of the applicant. Mr. Arnold is our professional planner, and Mr. Delate is our civil engineer. Mr. Trebilcock is our traffic consultant, and Marco Espinar is our environmental consultant. The property that we're going to be discussing today is an approximate 8.24-acre parcel of land located along the East Tamiami Trail. And as you can see on the screen, we have Broward Street across the street, and there's a traffic signal in this location. And when we show you the master plan, you'll see how we're providing a connection to that traffic signal for the individuals who live on Myrtle Lane as well as there's development over here that would have the ability to get to that traffic signal. That condition has been in the existing PUD and is being carried forward in this proposed PUD for the property. The property is about seven acres that is existing, a commercial PUD, and 1.2 acres, which is an existing RMF-6 parcel. As your staff report indicated, these parcels were deemed consistent by policy. When the Growth Management Plan was originally adopted in 1989, we went to this activity center concept where commercial was supposed to be located in the four quadrants around major intersections and strip commercial that you commonly find around East Tamiami Trail and North Tamiami Trail is not favored under the Growth Management Plan, and there are incentives to redevelop this property for other uses other than commercial. In our particular case, we're staying with the commercial, but under the existing Growth Management Plan we could get to 16 units per acre on this piece of property, plus the commercial that would be under the commercial property, plus another seven units on the multifamily. So we could put a 120-unit multifamily project on this particular piece of property under the existing Growth Management Plan. What we're proposing is to make some changes to the Growth Management Plan to basically allow for indoor self-storage and for the rental of U-Haul trucks. The other commercial uses that we're requesting are pretty much already allowed in the growth -- in the existing PUD. We're doing this with two petitions. We're doing a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment, which means that it's less than 50 acres, and the process means there is one review at the county and then it's transmitted to the State for their comments. That process was basically added to the state statutes several years ago because in counties like Collier County, if you look at our urban area -- which I don't know if you've seen the Future Land Use Map yet. I don't -- if I'm telling you things you already know -- and this is mainly for the new people -- under the -- or the new members. We have an urban area under our Growth Management Plan, and that urban area, if you look at it, is pretty much from Collier Boulevard west to the gulf and basically Immokalee Road south to the water as well. PENDING APPROVALPage 14 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 11 of 51 That area, if you look at it, is -- the bigger parcels are gone. They've been zoned. They've been accommodated. So there's a process, basically, to amend the Growth Management Plan to address smaller infill parcels, because the bigger policies in the Growth Management Plan really don't translate to development of smaller parcels like an 8-acre or a 10-acre parcel. So you will see in our Growth Management Plan several subdistricts, and you'll probably see me come up here with Mr. Arnold or other consultants on smaller infill is parcels and say, "We'd like to do a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan," and we'll do a concurrent PUD rezone typically at the same time so you basically see exactly how the property's going to be developed, because the current regulations really do not work for these smaller parcels of property. So that's what -- the first petition is a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and the second petition is basically to rezone the property to PUD. The existing zoning allows for 61,000 square feet of commercial and office uses, and we're making those changes that would allow us to have basically 200,000 square feet of indoor self-storage. And within that 200,000 square feet, we can have 3,000 square feet of retail uses as well as U-Haul trucks and some charging stations for electric vehicles. So we're taking the operations that are the current U-Haul site, which is roughly a 1-acre site, moving it to this piece of property, and meeting all the architectural standards for commercial buildings on this piece of property. So that's pretty much what the petition is requesting. We're not asking for any deviations from the code. We were originally asking for some deviations, and in meeting with staff -- and Wayne will get into this, and I talked to Mr. Bosi about this a little bit. Your staff report is asking us to do a Type B buffer along U.S. 41. A typical buffer along the street is a Type D buffer. The difference mainly is how tall you grow the hedge. In a Type B buffer, which is usually adjacent to residential, and that's what we have. Adjacent to residential, you grow the hedge to six feet. In a Type D buffer, you grow the hedge to three feet. So what we're asking for is to put in larger trees in the Type B buffer so it's an enhanced Type B buffer, and we're putting in additional palm trees in between the canopy trees that are included in our Type D buffer, which are larger than the canopy trees in the Land Development Code. So when you see the Type D enhanced buffer, that's what we're proposing along U.S. 41. And I'm sure during the staff report Mr. Bosi will tell you that -- upon further discussion, that our proposed enhanced Type D buffer is appropriate along U.S. 41. This is just the existing Future Land Use Map and our proposed -- or actually it's our proposed GMP designation -- Growth Management Plan designation for the property, and you can see what I basically described. We're asking for 200,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet of which is allowed for retail and the rental of the U-Haul trucks and outdoor and other allowed uses as part of our amendment. This is the existing zoning map that I already took you through where you have our existing CPUD and our multifamily site that will become one PUD. That's the overall request that you have before you, the two petitions. I'm going to turn it over to Wayne Arnold to take you through the existing master plan and the zoning and our proposed changes to the master plan and discuss the buffers, and then after that, we'll be done with our presentation and available to answer any questions you may PENDING APPROVALPage 15 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 12 of 51 have. Overall, what we're proposing is a significant reduction from traffic in this area. Self-storage basically generates very little traffic. The existing commercial can generate significantly more traffic than we're proposing, and clearly, a residential project 120 units in size would be significantly more traffic than what we're proposing today with these changes to the Growth Management Plan as well as the PUD. If you don't have any questions for me, I'll turn it over to Wayne. But when Wayne's done, the entire team is here to answer any questions you may have, if you don't have any questions for me at this time. Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Hold on one second, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: So close. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: This is just for clarification. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Take me to the corner of 41 and Collier Boulevard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Take you to the corner -- I don't have a picture of it. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: That's where I am. Where is this site? MR. YOVANOVICH: This site is to the west going towards the city, almost across from -- do you know where Lely Resort is? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. It's a little bit further to the east -- no, west, right? A little further -- you'll learn, Mr. Colucci, that I'm directionally challenged, so I always look for confirmation on my directions. A little bit west of Lely Resort. I think Broward Street is the entrance to Lely High School, if you're familiar with the road that you take off of 41 to go to Lely High School. So it's a little bit east Lely Resort. About how many miles is it from the intersection? It's about a mile west of the intersection. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. And where is the nearest residential neighborhood as it relates to this site? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you see right here -- right here -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that's the -- that's residential, that goes, I guess, west on Myrtle, so there's residential right here. And Mr. Arnold will take you through our master plan to show you that. And then there's some multifamily down here. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We could -- we could put -- if you want -- yeah, why don't we put a larger aerial on the visualizer for you, if that will help you, Mr. Colucci. Put that in a little bit better perspective. If you can see -- I guess this isn't going to do any good. Do you see where it says "Myrtle Lane?" COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's residential, and then Treetops is residential, and to the east is Naples Manor, and further east is the high school I was just describing. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Can I assume you're going to have some input or comments from the residents who live here? PENDING APPROVALPage 16 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 13 of 51 MR. YOVANOVICH: I think they're right over there (indicating), so... COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We had comments at the neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: While we had that map up, to the east or southeast of the Myrtle Lane community, do we know what's planned for that area? I think I saw on a different map -- I think it was Page 6 of the 21-page report -- it was, like, sectioned off almost as if it was in lots. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking just to the left of where it says "Treetops Drive"? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That big vacant area? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the answer to that right now, but -- oh, I wasn't sure if Heidi was -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi. The zoning for that area, that undeveloped area, is agriculture. And they are -- but it is parceled off into smaller parcels than the required five acres. So they're probably legal nonconforming lots there. But it's -- it's in waiting for development, I think, to arrive. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. Okay. So potentially it could be another community, a big community? MR. BOSI: The designation from the Future Land Use Map is urban residential, so a residential use would be something that would be promoted currently by the Growth Management Plan -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- as appropriate for that location. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Anything else? (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold, a certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates, and I'll walk you through the rest of our presentation. So as Rich mentioned and you see on the current zoning exhibit, we have surrounding commercial to the north and east, and then you have additional commercial along U.S. 41, and then we have the residences along Myrtle Lane. And just, you know, as you saw in the other aerial photograph, I think there were 35 or 36 residences along Myrtle Lane. So the existing approved master plan -- and north is to your right. This project was envisioned to be a 61,000-square-foot commercial planned development. There's the adjacent 1.2-acre residential multifamily site that we've added to this that comprises our 8.4-acre project. And on this exhibit, you can see that it was proposed to have ingress and egress between Myrtle Lane and Tamiami Trail, which is the signalized access point at Broward Street that goes back to the Lely High School. So for our revised plan for U-Haul -- and as Rich mentioned, this is a replacement site PENDING APPROVALPage 17 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 14 of 51 for the U-Haul. I mean, most of you, I'm assuming, have been in town a long time. I've been here for 35 years. And the U-Haul facility that they have is sort of an outdated example of what U-Haul has been moving into, and they're calling themselves a mobility center. So it's about us being mobile. Ourselves are mobile. We move. And so this will have a full service and/or self-storage facility that's a component of the type of U-Haul facilities as well as a one-story warehouse building that -- we're familiar with the pods. U-Haul has a U-Box concept. So if you need a personal moving opportunity, they can stack those on a truck and move you in a pod. You can put one in your driveway, et cetera. So it's part of the mobility. They intend to provide propane sales, which is consistent with what they currently do at the location on the trail that's in the redevelopment area. This site was identified because U-Haul is a growing enterprise. They're obviously a national company. They provide services throughout the country. And Collier County, obviously, has been the recipient of a lot of people moving into the area. So this -- that area grows with our community. We've grown to the east, and this responds to that. And as I mentioned, to orient you on the site, we have a couple of easements that are being vacated, so we're showing those on the master plan. This existing easement also has a companion easement vacation that goes along with it. When we originally spoke to the neighborhood information meeting, we depicted three buildings on this site. U-Haul has eliminated one of those buildings in favor of the larger indoor self-storage building. This would have the 3,000 square feet of retail, which if you've been to a U-Haul facility, you can buy boxes there, you can buy tape, you can buy packing supplies, things that go along with that. And so that would be a component of what they do in the 3,000 square feet of the facility. The U-Box warehousing building would be in this location, and then the vehicles that they would lease would be throughout the site. One of the things that we originally proposed was to eliminate the ingress to Myrtle in favor of just an emergency access only at this location. And the residents at the neighborhood meeting as well as staff suggested that we go back and live with the current condition of the PUD which says that we will provide a means of getting the community from Myrtle over to the signal at Broward. So we've depicted a conceptual alignment for that. That has a condition in the PUD that essentially mirrors what was there previously with additional verbiage that the County Attorney's Office added, but it guarantees that we will provide public access through the site and that that identified access will be identified at the time of site plan approval when all the engineering details are worked out. It's not going to be a road. It's not meant to be a road. It's going to be an ingress/egress easement for the community to utilize to get from Point A to B, and it's going to be probably more similar to some of the parking lot interconnections that we're all familiar with around town or as we travel. It's not going to be a dedicated through road. I mean, that would bifurcate the site and not really make it conducive to what U-Haul wants to do with the site, but we will be providing that access point. Rich mentioned a couple things on our buffer, and I just wanted to be a little bit more clear. So we have what we're calling an enhanced buffer along Myrtle and along our U.S. 41 frontage. And I think there was some misconception on the county's landscape architecture's part, because we weren't attempting to eliminate any of the canopy trees. In fact, we've provided for up-sized canopy trees at the time of planting at 14 feet, which is above your code PENDING APPROVALPage 18 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 15 of 51 minimum requirement. And in addition to that, we wanted to plant these palm clusters that would give an additional layering of buffer along that corridor but in no way eliminating those. In your code -- I think the confusion was your code allows us, typically, to transplant three palm trees for one canopy tree. Our intent is not to eliminate any of the canopy trees. It's to add the additional palm trees. And the idea with the Type B versus D -- I know some of it's new nomenclature for you, but as Rich mentioned, the Type D buffer is what's normally found along a right-of-way, and where we have parking adjacent to that, we provide a hedge, and that hedge has to go in planted at two feet height, and it's intended to grow enough so that it shields headlights from pointing directly onto the road. So the Type B buffer, which is what you typically put between commercial and residential, requires you to have a 6-foot-high opacity, and that can be a hedge, it can be a wall, or it can be a combination of a berm, a wall, and a hedge, but it mandates a 6-foot-high opacity. And for most business models, I don't think we want a wall in front of our site, and we certainly don't want to block to view of what's going on with signage and other things. So we think the traditional buffer that we've offered to be enhanced is a good thing and a good compromise. There's going to be fill brought in on site, so it's not as if the headlights are going to be at the car level. There's going to be a few feet of fill brought in the site. Some of you were around a few months ago when we brought a new Home Depot along this corridor as well, and there was -- the same issue came up, and it was not warranted to put in a B buffer. It was warranted that the D buffer with some enhancements was adequate, and we think the same should be true here. I have the language in the code. I can read it. And it was one of the conditions that we disagreed with for staff, and that was we think the D buffer is adequate. But the language -- and I'll read it slowly for Terri -- it says, "The 15-foot-wide Type D landscape buffers as shown on the master plan shall be enhanced above the LDC required buffer by having the required canopy trees a minimum of 14 feet tall at the time of planting, and palm tree clusters of staggered heights should be planted between the canopy trees for both U.S. 41 and Myrtle Lane buffers. The right-of-way canopy trees shall be native canopy trees, and palm trees may not be substituted." And that's what I referred to, that we don't get the opportunity to say, well, our three palm trees count as a canopy tree. We have to put in the canopies, and we're enhancing it with the tree clusters. So I just want to make sure that's understood, and I think Mike can address that as part of his presentation. This is a very conceptualized rendering, but you can see in the foreground the intended warehouse building. We've sat down with your architectural reviewer. We originally thought we needed some deviations from the code. As it turns out, we do not, and so we have not proposed a deviation. When we first held our neighborhood information meeting, we've said that we thought we needed a deviation. We wanted to go through this alternate review process that the county offers, and it was determined we don't need that. And you can kind of ignore the colorations. I see Mr. Shea, you know, sort of looking at that. And I think this is a conceptualized version. The "U" building would be back here where they would store the pods. And then, of course, we're depicting the enhanced buffer. And the palm trees don't really read well on this rendering, but these are canopy trees supplemented with those, and then there's a meandering hedge that goes along there as well. And then what's depicted here is the signalized intersection at Broward, and that was intended -- and we think that FDOT will allow us to open that up to become a true signalized PENDING APPROVALPage 19 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 16 of 51 intersection. So the Myrtle residents and other commercial users that are on Myrtle would have an access to come through the site to get out to the signalized intersection. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Arnold, can you keep that slide back up real quick? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Secretary Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I guess I'm having trouble visualizing how that -- passing through the site. So if I live on Myrtle and there's no light for me to go left on Tamiami, I can just drive through your site anywhere I want and go through your entrance so I can have access to Tamiami going east at the light? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It just seems like an accident waiting to happen. There's no control over somebody flowing through the yard and trucks moving around and being parked and -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that's why the condition that was previously written and the condition as it's carried forward allows that to be better defined at the time of site plan approval. So we're going to have to depict where the storage of vehicles and those things occur versus the travel lane that will carry the traffic. Keep in mind that the traffic on Myrtle, those that would use it are the ones town bound. So left bound from Myrtle. There are 35 homes there. It's primarily built out, so you're not going to see a great number of additional homesites so that -- it's for those northbound movements which are probably fairly minimal. But there's also -- if you don't want to take advantage of the signal, you can go down and make a U-turn at the next signal just about a half a mile down the road. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Will you identify a pathway -- MR. ARNOLD: We will. And it's shown on -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- there like you do at airports for shuttle buses, that you stay in the lines, and -- MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think what -- as I mentioned, you know, this isn't meant to be a road, and there's an exception, so we don't treat it as a roadway for setback purposes, et cetera. It's clearly -- it's very likely going to be a drive aisle that's part of our parking lot. And it will be defined that way, the "access to signal" or something. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Shea, we anticipate when the SDP comes through that we will actually mark it and put signage up to make sure those who are using it know where they're going. We don't -- we don't want them wandering through the site. We want it to be identified so that they can safely get to the traffic signal. And I'll let you know, some people at the neighborhood information meeting wanted us to not have that access and others did want us to have that access, but ultimately Collier County staff said, "You will have that access," so we had -- we're carrying that forward. But it's in our interest to make sure that it's properly signed and marked so that the traveling public can get to that traffic signal. MR. ARNOLD: And, Mr. Shea, I would just mention as well, this is not going to be a gated facility. U-Haul does not gate their facilities, so... CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Back up to the conceptual, if you would, please. Thank you. On the slide before it -- and maybe there's been modifications -- it's stated that the -- I'll PENDING APPROVALPage 20 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 17 of 51 call it the most western property was a single story and that the other one, I'll call it the eastern, is a four-story. On the conceptual, they're both multistory. Is that just incorrect? MR. ARNOLD: Well, let me clarify. So the building that's the traditional and/or self-storage that we're all accustomed to seeing, this rendering is for a three-story concept. It's still 200,000 square feet. We labeled it four-story because the height that we're suggesting, which is 50 feet, could accommodate a four-story self-storage building. So we've got 50 feet as our zoned height, which is consistent with the existing planned development that's there today, although that existing PUD says three stories and 50 feet. So keep in mind now we deal with a zoned height and actual height, so we established our zoned height of 50 feet, which is consistent with that approved for today, and we established a maximum actual height of 60 feet. But the -- and just to explain, then, on the -- with the U-Box building, it's depicted as a multistory building, and that addresses your glazing, but what it is, it's one single story where they can stack multiple pods on top of each other. So it's not really stories. It's got the vertical height in order to store those. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. And unfortunately, this rendering does not show the actual traffic light which, just for future, would help conceptualize that, "Oh, yes, there is now a four-way intersection going on on that rendering," so -- but thank you for your explanation. MR. ARNOLD: Yep. You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Going back to the rendering, I see a lot of concrete space in between the two buildings. Why is there so much of a parking area there? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. What's not depicted there are the vehicles that U-Haul -- the trailers and the trucks that you can go in and rent. So this is also going to have those types of uses. They just don't depict those in this rendering. This was meant to sort of show the landscaping and the bulk of the buildings. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So it's just going to have a lot of cars there, trucks? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it will have trucks and trailers. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And then along the lines of -- if it's okay to ask -- continue to ask. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. The buffer, the landscape that you were mentioning, when you talk about canopy trees and palm trees, my concern is you still see through all of that and you see trucks. Can you go back to what you were saying on the hedges? Is there something that can hide what's back there? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think you're ever going to hide everything that's in a parking lot. But keep in mind that the site today is undeveloped. It's low, so there's going to be fill brought in. So if you're in the travel lane of U.S. 41, the actual elevation that gets developed is going to be a few feet higher than is there today, and then on top of that, you plant a couple-foot-high hedge that gets maintained at two to three feet in height typical, and that's high enough. Most -- if you drive down the highway, that's high enough to shield car lights. Maybe not every truck light. But, you know, the idea isn't to hide everything that's going on on the site. It's really to take away. And we think the -- it's to take away the headlight glare, but in this case, between the extra palm trees, the higher trees, and the hedge, we think that PENDING APPROVALPage 21 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 18 of 51 layering effect is perfectly adequate. And I would also say that, you know, it's not a really good comparison to look at their site that we're all familiar with back toward the Davis Boulevard intersection, because, you know, if you've been around long enough, U.S. 41 didn't always look like that. That property, as well as the Thalheimer Gallery, if you've been around long enough, and all of those properties where the mini golf is, they had a huge right-of-way taking. It took away all of their prior buffering. So that's why their vehicles seem to be right on the back of the sidewalk, because they are. All the property that the State took from them, they were allowed to continue to use what they had. So that's why the building and the improvements are so close to the right-of-way in that location. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: The reason why I asked about the buffers, I'm really mostly concerned about the residents when they want to go for a walk. There's a sidewalk in front of this. I would just like them to see beautiful foliage and not trucks. That was my concern. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to point out, one of the current allowed uses on this site is a car dealership. So that development would result in more cars, more trucks sitting on this piece of property than reality is from what we're requesting. This will be a much -- it will be a nice buffer, but there's nothing we can do to avoid their being able to see the U-Haul trucks that are -- that -- candidly, U-Haul won't relocate if we were required to put in the 6-foot hedge along both sides of this. And you wouldn't have a 6-foot hedge if we built the car dealership, and you wouldn't have the enhanced buffer. You would have a typical buffer. So I think the community is getting an enhancement through reducing the traffic and enhancing the buffers than they would get otherwise on this under the existing zoning. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Just one point, though, you know, cars versus U-Haul trucks with the signage is a little different. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand there's a -- but, you know, you could sell -- if you go to Tamiami Ford or anywhere else, they sell trucks as well. It's not just -- it's just not cars. There's other vehicles that you would see in a very cramped and crowded car dealership, along with other noisy things that would come along with that car dealership. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: You have to bear with me. I'm new. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So I've got to get used to some of these acronyms. What's on this parcel right now? MR. ARNOLD: Today the parcel's actually a vacant piece of property, but it has zoning on it -- it has an RMF-6 zoning for about one acre of it, which is residential multifamily. That allows roughly six units per acre. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And then it has a Planned Unit Development, which is a commercial plan development that allows 61,000 square feet of a variety of uses, including, as Mr. Yovanovich mentioned, a car dealership, other retail uses. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So the answer is "nothing right now"? PENDING APPROVALPage 22 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 19 of 51 MR. ARNOLD: It's a vacant piece of property today, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. The second thing I'd like to understand is the property -- the parcel's currently designated mixed -- Urban Mixed-Use District, correct? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it's part of the Urban Mixed-Use -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So that allows for a car dealership, right? I think that's what I just heard. MR. ARNOLD: The current zoning does permit for a car dealership, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So it permits a car dealership but not a storage facility? MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. Well, I've learned something. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Since our code was written many years ago, what we now know as self-storage has evolved dramatically and, you know, these have become more office building looking things. They're not relegated to industrial parks as they used to be. So that's one of the big differences. So as Rich mentioned, we've got a list of uses that these mostly relate to allowing us to have some of the same C-1 through C-3 uses in the 3,000 square feet because of the variety of retail uses that U-Haul tends to sell in addition to, then, the leasing and the storage for their cube storage and moving. As I mentioned, we establish development standards as part of every plan development. Most of the time we focus on, you know, the setbacks and the height. I talked about the height. The current zoning on the property would allow the 50 feet zoned height. We've carried forward that same request for 50 feet of zoned height, and then an actual height of 60. The 60 -- for those that are maybe new to the code, you know, Rich coined the phrase, "It's the tippy top." So the actual height is the highest of any embellishment that goes on your building. So if you decided to put a decorative tower element or something on the property, 60 feet is the highest part of any of that architectural embellishment. The zoned height is measured as to the roofline or the midpoint of the roof, depending on the type of roof. So that's the distinction, and back in the day we didn't have an actual height. It was only a zoned height. Transportation -- Norm Trebilcock is here, who prepared the traffic analysis, but I think there's just a couple of major takeaways. One, we establish, as part of any new plan development, a trip cap, so it establishes the highest peak-hour trip cap, and that's the first bullet point. It's 62 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. You know, if you go to the second bullet point, it's 238 trips associated with what's allowed today on the site. If they develop the 61,000 square feet of retail uses, that would equate to 238 peak-hour trips. So that's a 380 percent reduction -- or 380 percent higher trip rate than we're proposing. So, I mean, that's kind of the key component here. The other component is we're opening up an access point at the Broward intersection which we think benefits the Myrtle Lane traffic as well as our commercial use. And in sort of conclusion, this is replacing the antiquated site that we have that's in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. We're providing the signalized access. We've committed to the enhanced buffers. We're addressing the demand. And one of the things I didn't really touch on, but it's in the Growth Management Plan application, we have to do a market needs analysis to demonstrate that there is demand for additional self-storage. U-Haul isn't in the business of losing money, I can assure you, so U-Haul has analyzed PENDING APPROVALPage 23 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 20 of 51 this site as well as others in the areas, their competitors, as well as other vacant sites to determine whether or not this is a feasible site. They think it is. They're excited about the site. So we've demonstrated that there is a market demand for that. And as I said, we certainly support the recommendation of approval by staff. I think our disagreement is in the Condition 1 that references a Type B buffer versus Type D buffer, and we hope you can support our request for the Type D buffer. With that, I'll answer any other questions, or Norm or our team can answer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Vice Chair, it's Commissioner Schmitt. I have a couple questions. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Please go, Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. One is, Wayne or Rich, just for the record, can you state any cost associated with modifying the traffic signal, that being the replacement of mast arms or any other cost? That will be solely at the petitioner's requirement to pay for that, not the county. Can you -- is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Schmitt, this is Wayne Arnold. I don't think we have a definitive cost estimate, but as you're probably aware, when you're dealing with mast arms and signal changes, it's probably several hundred thousand dollars associated with full service traffic signals, and those costs will be borne by the applicant. Those are not intended to be borne by the county. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But, Wayne, there's no commitment for that, right? There's no commitment in the PUD for that? MR. ARNOLD: No, there's no definitive commitment related to the signal cost. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're happy to add that commitment. But, you know, we typically are required for all site-related improvements to be on our dime. So if you want to include that as one of the site-related improvements so there's no ambiguity, that's fine with us. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's their call for the Planning Commission. You stated that it was going to be your cost, and I just wanted to make sure they understood it was not in the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, but I wanted for the newer members to understand that there are site-related costs that are the developer's cost, typically. So you're not going to see every site-related cost in a PUD document as a commitment. That's -- that's the only reason I wanted to bring that up. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Also, Rich, you've identified the Condition No. 2, but not Condition No. 1 of staff report. So if you could address that later on. And sorry for the interruption, but I thought you'd like the clarification. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I guess what -- we're not -- yeah, we're not -- we're not agreeing with either of the two staff recommendations regarding landscape buffers. And I'll let Mike address that. We're going to stick with the PUD as it was written -- written by us, just to clarify. Okay. Thanks, Heidi. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just to continue, and probably Norm would even be able to highlight even further. Considering this traffic light already exists, you're still going to have to go through the State. Whether it requires a new warrant for a light, I don't know. But regardless, all costs would be borne by the petitioner. So we can make that clear in the PUD. PENDING APPROVALPage 24 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 21 of 51 The second question I have -- and I already spoke to Rich about this -- since there's going to be vehicles on site, I want to be very clear what maintenance would be allowed on site. What I don't want is a maintenance center for repairing trucks. That's not what was in the PUD or in the request. I can see and understand what I would call preventative maintenance checks and services, those kinds of things that you would do routinely daily, whether it's minor maintenance, but what should be prohibited on site is any major maintenance, whether, you know, brakes -- changing of brakes or those kind of things. All that kind of work of any of the requirements that -- required by U-Haul, those trucks would have to be moved off site to a proper maintenance facility. Can you clarify for the record any maintenance requirements and hours of maintenance, those kinds of things, if there is any type of work like that that needs to be done on site. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. Again, Wayne Arnold, Mr. Schmitt. And there is no intention to do any kind of major repairs here. Obviously, washing and detailing of the vehicles, probably some very minor repair, windshield washers, things like that. But there is no maintenance facility built into this plan whatsoever. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. The only thing I would even think of is -- you know, that's exactly what you said, windshield -- windshield wiper; battery change, if needed; possibly even a flat tire repair. But anything beyond that, there -- it's not a maintenance facility, and any type of work that would be done would be done off site, not on that site. So we just want to make that clear for the record as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I have a question on noise. Should I ask that now? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you. I live in Parkshore, in the city, and maybe, like, two streets off from 41. There used to be a huge car dealership on 41, and you could hear the operations on the car dealership. Like, you could hear people -- salespeople being called to the phone and things like that. "Tom Smith, you've got a call on Line 1." That car dealership is now gone, and now there's a Rooms to Go warehouse, and you don't hear the same kind of things. My concern about this is noise to the neighborhood. Are we assured that there are no kind of outdoor loudspeakers, any kind of noise that would affect the neighborhood? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know if they have a speaker system to summon employees to come to the office or related to that. I don't know the answer to that, so I don't know. We could try to find out while the public is speaking. What I would want to point out, that this is going to be a much quieter use than the car dealership that can currently go on that site. There are no outdoor speakers. We're communicating with the U-Haul person as we speak. This may be a good time for me to address something that you brought up regarding landscaping. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: U-Haul is willing to maintain the hedge along Myrtle at the 6-foot height to keep in context with the residential character but will not agree to increase the PENDING APPROVALPage 25 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 22 of 51 height along 41. So I hope -- I hope that addresses your concern about if the neighborhood is going on a walk down the residential street. It still will have basically the residential buffer that you would typical find and we do have along our residential boundary. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we typically include a commitment in the PUD that says no outdoor speakers, so we'll have to add that, in case Heidi says it's not in the PUD. Because if not, we would have to add that. Hopefully that addresses your concern regarding noise. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. Just as long as, you know, there's nothing out there that will disturb the neighborhood. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I can't promise you -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Besides just the cars coming in and out. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't promise that. You know, there's -- you know, it's normal traffic. There's going to be -- this property's going to get developed at some point, so there's going to be noise from that site that's typically -- that's obviously not there today, but the uses that we're proposing are not noisy uses. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Hello, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hello, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Quick question for you. I know some U-Haul facilities allow or provide for trailer hitch installation into personal cars. And if so, it does get somewhat complicated. They have to jack the car up. They have equipment that comes in. They do those installations, quote, on site. Is this option or business opportunity offered at this location? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's currently -- I understand it's at the current, and we're anticipating doing it at this location as well. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: By any chance could that be done inside where the pods are located? Because this does start to -- all right, now we have somebody's van out in the parking lot lifted up, bolted in. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm being told is that it's not a noisy operation, and they're not lifted up, and that, no, that -- the pod building is for storage. So relocating maintenance or that type of activity inside that pod building is not an option for us. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Do you know if there's an area dedicated for this type of trailer hitch installation that might not be seen easily, you know, on the back side of the main storage building? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the -- where's the master plan. If you'll see, if it's going to occur, it's going to -- it's going to occur in an area, I would think -- obviously, it's not going to happen in the back because -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And this is the old-fashioned storage right here next to us, and in this area -- I mean, we could commit that it wouldn't happen here if that will help. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Well, that's pretty much a 6-foot fence anyway on the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking if -- I mean -- but it's -- I don't think at the end of the day what you're going to have -- now that you're going to have your 6-foot hedge along Myrtle, you're not going to really see it. PENDING APPROVALPage 26 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 23 of 51 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Just -- I'm also putting in mind when folks, the few times a day it may happen, come off of Myrtle, go into the easement area to get to the traffic signal at Broward, where this operation may take place. Looking at safety and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure all of that will be addressed when the site development -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Site development plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is actually approved. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. As long as we're aware of that, not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: This is not going to be -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It doesn't happen often. I know that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- but even then, it's not going to be -- it's not going to be a use on the site where all this activity's going to be happening all this time and, inconveniently, cars are going to be coming through to try to get to the traffic signal. All this will be addressed as part of the Site Development Plan. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Site Development Plan. Perfect. All right. Thank you. You've answered that. I appreciate it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Anything else? Anybody else on our team? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I'll turn it over to Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, again. Planning and Zoning director. As contained within the GMP amendment as well as the rezone, the PUD rezone request, staff is recommending approval. We are modifying our recommendation or our additional conditions. What I've just heard from the applicant -- I think I would want to confirm with him -- that the -- I believe that they agreed that -- the buffer along Myrtle Lane, they would agree to the Type B buffer along Myrtle Lane. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We'll agree to a B along Myrtle and enhanced D along 41. MR. BOSI: And the enhanced D along 41, staff is supporting that arrangement. If you can see, this is your type -- up here is your Type B buffer, so you have -- you have trees that are planted 25 feet on center and then a single row of hedge plantings that is to grow six feet. The contrast from -- the contrast from the B buffer to the D buffer, which is here, is you've got trees that are 30 feet on center, and you have a double row of hedge that is maintained at three feet. So what they're proposing on U.S. 41 is the D buffer, which is 30 feet with their canopy trees, and I think they agree that they're going to be canopy trees; they will not be replaced with palms or understory trees. They'll have a double row hedge that's going to be maintained at three feet as well as clusters -- three clusters of palms spaced in between the trees that are planted on 30 feet to provide for additional enhancement, and that arrangement staff -- staff would be supportive of. We understand along the right-of-way for a commercial use the code requires just a simple Type D buffer. They're asking -- they recognize that there is concern about the visual impact of this site along the traveling public as well as pedestrians and bicyclists along that sidewalk that abuts the development, and we think the additional cluster enhancement of palms provides for additional softening of the viewshed. And I think that was one area that still was in question related to what was being proposed and what was within the staff report. And based upon the conversation with PENDING APPROVALPage 27 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 24 of 51 the -- that the applicant's presentation was, we can agree with the enhanced buffer along Myrtle, because that's the residential -- that's the street that leads to the residential development that's to the west. And then on 41, the enhanced Type B, we think, provides for the adequate buffering and allows for this site to integrate with -- into the built environment in a more measured or at least appropriate way. And any questions that you would have on any of the issues that we discussed today, staff would be happy to answer. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mike, quick question. What type of signage is allowed on this site? MR. BOSI: Well, it's -- the signage is going to be per code. They are not seeking any deviations that are -- that are contained within the PUD, so they have to maintain their signage per the Land Development Code. And I couldn't tell you specifically the square footage of the signage, but what I can tell you is our signage code is not very liberal in terms of what it allows. It's pretty restrictive. And with no deviations being sought, there's no additional signs than what the minimum is required by -- or allowed by the code would be provided for. And the square footage that's associated with it is not -- is not being requested above what the code requires. So in that regard, what this will -- this will play by the rules of every other commercial building. And another thing that I want to point out, each one of the buildings that are on this site will be required to meet all of the architectural standards. There was no deviations that are being requested. So the full -- the arrangement of architectural embellishments will be imposed upon the structures that are being proposed. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Another question I had is, what could be built on this property right now without coming from before the Planning Commission? MR. BOSI: I think Mr. Yovanovich has probably identified the one that would be maybe the least best fit for the neighborhood, it being a car dealership. But you could also have 60,000 or 62,000 square feet of commercial activity, and that commercial activity, though it is neighborhood serving and it's goods and services, it will have a higher degree of traffic that will be associated with it. So there's pros and cons to what could be developed or what is being proposed development. I think from a transportation standpoint, it is a much welcomed reduction in terms of the overall trips that could be generated at this location. So for those reasons, you know, and other reasons, those are some of the factors that we looked at. Another aspect, we do recognize that the location of the current U-Haul, you know, adjacent towards where the development of mini-triangle and the redevelopment effort that is happening right now, more to a centralized location further to the east is beneficial. The one -- the one petition that you guys -- that the new Planning Commission got to hear so far was the AUIR at the prior meeting. And if you -- if you remember, I'm not sure if I highlighted to you, but the COs -- we had a map in there, and they showed the COs that have been issued from 2006 to 2023, and we've showed dots. And what you'll see is Immokalee Road, east of Collier Boulevard heading -- heading to the east and towards the Orangetree area is where you're seeing a tremendous amount of growth, but also the East Trail. The East Trail along -- down to Collier Boulevard, and then beyond Collier Boulevard is where you're seeing even more of new residential development popping up. PENDING APPROVALPage 28 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 25 of 51 So what we're saying is you're seeing a migration of the moving facility from that constrained site to a site that has a little bit more flexibility, and it's large enough to be able to maintain the commitment to allow for the access from Myrtle to the light across the street to be able to provide that movement. So there are a number of larger public benefits that are being identified as well as some of the site specifics that we know that are needed to help mitigate the impacts to the existing residential neighborhood. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: And if something went in there other than a U-Haul, there's nothing that would make that developer, or whoever built it out, to allow access to Myrtle, for them to cut through to get to a light. MR. BOSI: No. The commitment for -- the commitment to the light is currently in the existing PUD. So that -- whoever -- whatever was being proposed, transportation staff would say we need to maintain that commitment. So that -- that existed -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It already existed. MR. BOSI: The applicant has obviously agreed that they will allow for that type of access to the property. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: And I had read an e-mail where it seemed like -- the way it read to me was that the redevelopment on that triangle was kind of pushing U-Haul out. And this is probably a question for Rich. No one's telling U-Haul you've got to move. Like, that owner of that property can stay there as long as he wants, correct? MR. BOSI: As far as I know, they're -- I mean, not from a governmental standpoint. It's a use that's -- it's permitted by their zoning, so there's no governmental message that you need to leave because we want this site to redevelop. I think it's just market forces, probably, that are more of the things that are kind of urging that type of activity. And I would like to point out from a staff perspective one other key aspect. And you mentioned -- we mentioned a little bit about it, and we talked about it during the rezoning for Home Depot, and it's the East Naples Development Plan. The East Naples Development Plan was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2020, and that was a multiyear effort of us talking to the community, doing visual preference surveys, to see what would they like to see within this East Trail corridor to help provide more neighborhood and community serving type of uses. And the end result of that -- of that study was they were -- the auto-oriented uses, they thought they needed some more design components to soften some of those, and they've incorporated some of these designs. But what they also did was identified community and regional centers along that trail, and this is one of the community centers. What they would be proposing in the East Naples Development Plan, if it was fulfilled, would be a mixed-use site with the potential for 135 multifamily units as well as commercial development which is what's being promoted. And I think that could be a use. But one of the things that we would have to recognize is if that use was developed, the transportation impacts associated with that would be much greater than what's being proposed today. So overall, we think this -- the proposal has been adjusted and designed to fit within the context of sitting on a six-lane divided highway but recognizing that we have a residential neighborhood to the south, and the design components in the arrangement of the buildings have been encouraged to recognize the sensitivity of that residential development that sits to the west. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Does anyone on the dais have any questions for Mike? PENDING APPROVALPage 29 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 26 of 51 (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. How many public speakers do we have registered? MR. ALONSO: We have two on site. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Just two? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: How many online? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: How many -- well, how many in person and how many online? MR. ALONSO: So none online but two so far on site. It looks like we need to have a few more fill out -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: We need to do a few more. Let me ask the court reporter if it's okay if we recess now instead of 10:30 and allow these folks to fill out speaker slips. MR. BOSI: Chair, and could I just -- for the public, if you would like to speak -- and it's my fault. I should have let you know at the very beginning. If you would like to speak, Oscar and Ailyn are in the back. They have speaker slips to fill out. So during the break, if you want to -- if you would like to speak and comment on the matter, go back there. They'll take care of you, and you'll have -- you'll have the opportunity to speak and have the Planning Commission hear your perspective. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That being said, we'll go ahead and recess till 10:30. (A brief recess was had from 10:18 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Welcome back. I'll ask everybody to take their seats, and we will move into -- well, first let me ask the Planning Commission if there's any questions for staff at this time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: If not, I'll move into public comment. MR. ALONSO: Hello. There we go. Okay. We have seven speakers, starting with Falconer Jones, and then followed by Gregory Vilk. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I will say, as we get into public speakers, you're allowed five minutes to discuss the item. If, by chance, somebody gets up and says exactly what you were going to say, you don't have to use all five minutes. You can say, "I agree with what they said," and it counts just as much. So with that, I will turn it over to you. Mr. Falcon; is that correct? MR. JONES: No, Falconer, first name. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Falconer. MR. JONES: I have two last names. I had nothing to do with it. Thank you for letting me speak. I've been a resident of Collier County for almost 50 years. Rich and I got chatting. You know, we know some of the same old-time guys that were around here. I was fortunate enough when I first came here to meet some of them. And most of them are gone now. But my just -- my one thing is when I first came to Naples, I came down this road with my parents. I think the first traffic signal I saw was at the four corners, and it was a blinker, and it had a sign, "Beaches, four blocks." But anyways, I've been around here a long time. I've actually had our attorneys, our architects, our engineers, our traffic people coming before not only the county for development -- because that's what I did. I did it in the city. I did it in the county. PENDING APPROVALPage 30 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 27 of 51 The question I want to ask of you people today is why. Why are we trying to put this project on this site? Why did -- why are we moving the storage facility, the U-Truck [sic] facility down from an area where it's now becoming more residential, and we're now putting it on Myrtle Lane? I live on Myrtle Lane. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It's not -- it's the petitioner that's doing it. MR. JONES: My question is, why is -- why would we want to do it? Why would you -- why would that -- why would we want to do that as planners -- as planners? Why would we want to move a site that was -- it is becoming more residential downtown on the five corners and put it in a residential area, which is Myrtle Lane? Why would I want to drive through their site to get to my house at night? She had a very good point. There's only one access in and out of Myrtle Lane. This is on other sites along 41 that there's multiple ways to get out of the development, including Treviso Bay, the Isles of Collier, and all of the developments on the other side. So that's my question. Why? Why are we trying to take a site that has a road that has -- that's going to go right through to the traffic light and try to make it something that it isn't? That's my point. I have nothing more to say. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, thank you, sir. MR. ALONSO: Our next speaker's going to be Gregory Vilk, followed by Claudia Fuller. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Gregory. I know you've been sworn in. Sir, have you been sworn in? MR. VILK: I actually stood up on the first batch, on the first run. So good morning. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm going to try to get through my five minutes. I had pre-done notes, but there's 10 items I'd like to probably disclose, especially the question that was asked about the land -- the acreage land that was identified as agricultural. And I'd like to talk about that after I get through my initial so the Board at least understands. The current U-Haul property sale, if it does happen, is not a transfer to be considered under any duress. In fact, such sale would be a favorable transaction to all parties involved. So wanting to come down to Myrtle Lane is a choice, not an eminent domain, not a public community benefit. The existing zoning use allocated to each parcel on Myrtle Lane or the subject property should never ever be reduced or limited against the property owner's rights, or the zoning. I'm a hard believer of property owner rights, their use and their privileges. Never ever restrict them. That's my belief. I also don't believe you should gift or grant an opportunity to another party when it becomes a hardship or a burden on the community or the neighborhood. Residents that were obviously able to make it here today and/or to be present in the prior library are here. Many of them do work, so they couldn't be here, but I think we do have a good showing. The existing U-Haul business near Davis does not currently have storage capacity, which has also always been -- at least 12 years that I've been a full-time resident has always been an eyesore to the community. The existing business does not need any gratuity from the county off the backs of the residents to operate under the same or excessive additional conditions, use, or services. They are a for-profit business. They clearly told us they're here for profit. The current U-Haul property sale is nothing more than an accelerated opportunity for PENDING APPROVALPage 31 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 28 of 51 financial gain and benefit to each party which the nonconforming parcels on Myrtle Lane don't qualify certainly either as a hardship or a gift. Any approval here to modify or change the current or existing zoning use would represent, in my opinion, a plain act of privilege to a business knowing there shall be harm to the neighboring residents, traffic flow, and literally a sledgehammer to the so-called commissioner's desire to pause and/or have a moratorium on self-storage facilities. There also is an abundant amount of land south or east of 951 and 41 that this facility that they've proposed will fit. And I'm going to say it again. There's an abundant [sic] of land. This is nothing but an opportunity and on the backs of the residents. An approval here today would provide no value to the county but certainly admit our public officials have made a huge error in messaging to the residents. There is no additional need for more additional self-storage facilities in this county. Collier County is being smothered by self-storage facilities. Now, if I can get onto the land that's behind Myrtle Lane, it's 186 acres, roughly. They're all individual residential parcels, about one acre. They're landlocked. They've been landlocked since the '70s. Nothing will happen to those properties. It's an ideal park. It's an ideal residential development. The greatest and best access is on the properties they're trying to steal and landlock as part of the easements and their use. There's a four-way intersection that was created years ago. The State has already done all the infrastructure and all the improvements to that four-way light. It's ready. They're not using it. They're proposing not to use it. There's a reason why the State did it. I drive Collier County. I live here full-time. This would probably be one of the only intersections created and established as a four-way that wouldn't be used, and we've already made the investment for it. If they want to move -- or can they move the U-Haul business from where it is, how they operate, onto either one of those parcels. Let them do it if they're allowed to, but I see no benefit to the residents or to the community to even consider this proposal. Much of the information they've said here today is not accurate from the library or from the public venue item we had. And also, the 200,000-square-foot use or building versus the extortion type of style versus having a car dealership or an office building, if it qualifies, it qualifies. I just ask that you don't grant any of these approval or proposal requests. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. ALONSO: Our next speaker is going to be Claudia Fuller, followed by Steve Fuller. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning, Ms. Fuller. MS. FULLER: Hi. Claudia Fuller. I was going to try to put this up, but I don't know if it will go up there. This is the -- I'm not sure if it's the right angle. This -- ooh, sideways -- is a page from the East Naples Comprehensive Development Plan, and it is of this intersection. The important thing to know from this intersection, we're not just talking about Myrtle Lane. Myrtle Lane, as everybody has said, has a small amount of RMF-6, and the rest of the street is single-family homes, all of a certain size acreage. It's a narrow lane, 17 feet wide, and it has kind of tight access. But the important thing also is right across the street is Naples Manor. So there is a lot of traffic through this area. And what their changes are requesting doesn't just impact our neighborhood. It does impact the neighborhood across the street that is also the access to Lely High School. PENDING APPROVALPage 32 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 29 of 51 So it's important, in my mind, to think about, do we really need this change? How is this change going to benefit our community? The East Naples Community Development Plan that was part of a county program and paid for with county funds, and a consultant created a more neighborhood-like development that would enhance our community would offer services, doctors' offices, hair salons, mixed-use, as has been mentioned, that would benefit all of the neighbors, not just Myrtle Lane, but also Naples Manor across the way, and maybe even Treviso and the gated communities that surround this area. I don't feel these changes are consistent with the future neighborhood character. There was discussion about less traffic, but is this less traffic, and at what quality? At one point in the applicant's statement they said: "These are customers that are often driving 32-foot-long moving trucks, and they typically don't have a lot of experience with driving that size of truck." Not really the kind of situation that enhances a neighborhood. Not really heavily discussed -- I know you guys talked a little bit about maintenance and repair facilities and adding hitches to vehicles. They also want to have a propane facility there. They are taking a multifamily parcel, part of it is multifamily, turning it into commercial, and they are going to have propane there. Nowhere on the site plan are they showing where those propane tanks are. That is less than 500 feet from single-family homes. It's less than one foot from other zoned RMF-6. Finally, the applicant said, "Oh, there's a high-market demand." Within three miles there are six to eight other self-storage facilities, and they keep going up. And there is a self-storage facility right next door. Whether it's an old-fashioned self-storage facility or a new-fashioned one, it's still a self-storage facility, and they are just lining the East Trail. This kind of facility is better suited for an activity center like Collier/951 or even better near the interstate. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Ms. Fuller. MR. ALONSO: Our next speaker is Steve Fuller, followed by Joe Smith. MR. FULLER: Thank you. My name is Steve Fuller. I'm also a Myrtle Lane resident, and I concur with Mr. Vick [sic] and my previous speaker, my wife, Claudia, on all they said about the single-family parcels that aren't being addressed. From the get-go, when the applicant stood up and started to talk about Myrtle Lane, I was pretty embarrassed, actually, by the lack of concern that they really had for the residents down this street that's -- as Claudia said, it's only 17 feet long. A lot of the -- these are one-acre-plus sites. A lot of the residents that have lived here multi generations, they drive boats, they've got trailers. They work. And I've been on that street -- right now, by the way, that street still has Milton debris that comes a foot and a half from each side of the street. So as we pass one another in a truck, in a car, we have to stop, and we have to get off to the right, off to the left, so people can get by. It's not a standard street that you would see in a development now. Moving on from that, the intersection that they want the redevelopment -- and I love the fact they call it Myrtle Lane. It's really not Myrtle Lane. They wouldn't build a U-Haul on Myrtle Lane. They would build a U-Haul on 41, and that's what you want. And they want that U-Haul site because it was the least expensive going at the time. And let's put the cards on the table. It's Metropolitan of Naples. It's a development that's built a large parcel at 41 and Davis. And how they got county coding to go to the height PENDING APPROVALPage 33 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 30 of 51 they have, it's already under a lot of dispute and discussion. So they want to kick the can down the road. They want to move, in my mind, a pretty dysfunctional U-Haul center, which is only on one acre -- and I've been in that place at least a half a dozen times, and I've witnessed it. They want to move that down to a residential neighborhood, and they expect it to have no impact: Air guns, air hammers, activity on vehicles, propane sales, knuckleheads driving their U-Hauls in for the first time. I love the count of 62 maximum counts per hour. I've had to pause on 41 while there have been three people trying to get their U-Haul into the existing site. It's a mess. And this particular facility will bring nothing but chaos to this intersection. Don't know why they've centered on it. You've talked about it, and I appreciate a lot of your questions about noise and sound. Oh, they'll take the heavier work off site. This is going to be their mega-center. They won't have an off-site facility to service their vehicles. It will all be done on site. So that kind of really talks to their site choice. They've scaled that building height, by the way. Their original proposal was 70 feet. They've scaled it back to 50; 50 feet. There's not a building on the East Trail that's 50 feet right now. And then they've got an additional 10 feet to go to that 60-foot height for ancillary structures, tower, whatever. How about a big, glowing, orange U-Haul sign? It's not really going to be an asset to the East Trail for visitors, our tourists, but more importantly for residents, taxpaying homeowners, people that rent, people that are looking for that hairdresser or nail salon or whatever a generalized community center base would offer. A storage facility is something -- if somebody needs -- and they'll drive. They'll drive two miles, they'll drive 10 miles to store their stuff. So I really feel it's the wrong location. That land is low. There's very little drainage. Myrtle Lane already floods with every storm we get nowadays. So another comment somebody mentioned is, "Gee, there's a lot of concrete." And was there ever any offering of, "Oh, we're going to have berms and buffers with -- inside this envelope"? No. The comment was, "There will be vehicles parked there." So, you know, it's hard to understand how this impermeable footprint, which is technically up-slope from all the homes on Myrtle, are ever going to aid to the drainage. I'm confused as to the fact that this was ever zoned for a car dealership. Somebody else made the comment that there was a lot of new information which seemed very inaccurate in this meeting. I want to -- I want to echo that -- that particular cause because I've heard a lot of new comments that we didn't hear in the neighborhood meeting. And they don't seem to really make sense, and I don't think they're all true. So I guess the bottom line is, yeah, that community -- and it's not just Myrtle Lane. Let's back it up. This is a valuable -- another good comment. This is a valuable four-way intersection that's now going to be capitalized on, cannibalized on, and really, it won't be a four-way intersection. It's going to be the U-Haul main entrance. The other side of that intersection is a road that goes through a public neighborhood that goes to Park Elementary, Lely High School, and it's a very busy intersection, and it's a very vibrant community. Nobody wants to really talk about the Manor. It's been that way for years. I've been here for 40 years. But it is a vibrant community that also ranks in importance as well as Myrtle Cove Acres. So to cannibalize on that intersection for a -- for a business that is really a destination-driven business is unfair to the county residents. It's unfair to the county PENDING APPROVALPage 34 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 31 of 51 developers and council members, and it's going to leave a blemish that is going to be on your watch. And I think time will show that you made a mistake. So I talked about the 50-foot height, which is absolutely insane. I love the bells and whistles that they pull out with a buffer, you know. They talk about this beautiful buffer. Well, that buffer isn't going to do squat. That buffer's not going to hide the cars that are parked in the parking lot, the 50-foot-tall building, the signage, you know. So I'm going to echo back to the 2020 East Naples Redevelopment Council's plan. I don't know if you guys have seen that, but you certainly should. You should look at that. You should look at the value that that would bring to the neighboring communities. You should look at that to see the value it would bring to the overall complexion of East Naples, the 41 Trail, the entrance into Naples from that direction. So I'm not a public speaker, and I'd love to go on, but I don't want to ramble. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up, because I've got you at seven minutes now. MR. FULLER: All right. Well, okay. I'll let it go, but I think you know my feelings. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. MR. ALONSO: Our next speaker's going to be Joe Smith, followed by Kathy Smith. MR. SMITH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning, Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: How you doing? I live on Myrtle Lane, 5240. My family has owned property on Myrtle Lane since 1968. I was born in -- I was born Naples Community Hospital in 1963. Been on Myrtle Lane since I was nine years old playing up and down the street. Graduated high school, went in the Navy, retired from the Navy, moved back home to Myrtle Lane. I call it -- sorry. I call it my home. I call it -- friends, family, residents, we all use the street. We use the street for walking. We use the street for biking. There's many kids on the street. There's traffic on the street, as other people mentioned. The street is very narrow. You're going to be putting U-Haul trucks -- we know not every single one's going to come down the street, but there's going to be U-Haul trucks coming down the street. When the garbage trucks come down the street now, as Steve said earlier, you have to pull over. You have to wait until the garbage truck leaves the street to get off the street or to get on the street because the street is so narrow. There's no sidewalks. There's no place for anybody to go. This is a big safety issue for the residents of our street. Growing up there, there was about 10 houses on the street. Now there's 30, 33, 34, 35. It's not a place for a commercial/industrial facility as U-Haul. U-Haul right now is in an industrial facility in an industrial area. Why can they not put it in an industrial park in another part of the county? That's all I've got to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Mr. Smith. And I thank you for your service as well, sir. MR. ALONSO: Our next speaker is going to be Kathy Smith, followed by our final speaker, Michael Bailey. MS. SMITH: Good morning. PENDING APPROVALPage 35 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 32 of 51 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning. MS. SMITH: I'm Kathy Smith. We live on Myrtle Lane, as my husband said. His -- him and his family have owned property there for over 50 years. His cousin, Cricket Thornton, they've been there over 50 years as well. A huge thing for me is a safety issue and the traffic this will create. There's going to be increased traffic. There's going to be large trucks moving on and off this property. And as far as not creating any noise, they're going to be diesel trucks; they're noisy. There's going to be reverse sensors that we're going to hear all day long. We have kids. They're going to be walking back and forth to school. My youngest son was hit in that intersection by a car walking home from Lely High School by a red light runner. Now you want to add more vehicles, big trucks, inexperienced drivers driving these big trucks around that intersection. They're going to -- like, my husband said, they're going to be coming down our street. Not every one of them, but they're going to get turned around and come down the street. It's just a huge safety factor for our children, grandchildren, pets, our residents that are walking by -- you know, walking and riding their bikes. We're a very small, quiet community. We're very close knit. We all know each other. Before the neighborhood meeting, we had our own neighborhood meeting, and we had 34 residents at my house to support [sic] this. We don't want this. We don't want the zoning change. We don't want to accommodate, you know, this type of facility. This facility needs to be an industrial park, or a 951/Beck Boulevard area, 951/41 area east. And like someone else mentioned, we have CubeSmart right next door. Literally on the other site of the fence from this facility is CubeSmart. Whether it's old or not, it's a facility, storage facility. These gentlemen can sell you all day long on this facility, why it would benefit, you know, the community. That's their job. That's what they're here for. They're getting paid to do that. But at the end of the day, it's our neighborhood. When this is all said and done, that's our community. That's our neighborhood. We have to live there. We have to put up with the traffic. We have to put up with the safety issues, the noise, the inconvenience. You know, and driving through a parking lot to go to a red light, I mean, it just doesn't make sense. So, you know, on behalf of the other residents that couldn't make it, we really hope that you deny this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Ms. Smith. MR. ALONSO: Our next and final speaker is going to be Michael Bailey. MR. BAILEY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning, Mr. Bailey. MR. BAILEY: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I was born and raised here in Naples, 1957. Been here 67 and a half years. And I think they've done some over-improvement in Naples. You guys have done a pretty good job, but here's another slice of the pie that's going to take off on us. There's too much traffic there, and it's going to create more. This is just not a simple "just move it over; they don't cause much problem." The LP gas that they sell is a big line of traffic. And then people driving the U-Haul trailers and trucks, they're unfamiliar with them. They say, "Oh, it drives just like a car," until they get out in traffic. PENDING APPROVALPage 36 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 33 of 51 We don't have any sidewalks on our street. They're very -- it's an extra narrow street. I drive a full-size pickup, and if I pass Joe Smith in his full-size, our mirrors about touch. One of us has to go in the grass. So that's -- it's just not right. The self-storage is -- they're everywhere in Collier County, and a lot of them are being turned into little stores. You lift up the garage door, and then there's another facade there with an air-conditioner in it with some guy sewing or painting something or doing stickers for cars and all kinds of little items, which is going to increase the traffic more and more. The -- this -- these guys do a great job with what they're doing. They're really good at it. But this guy over here, it seems like he should be sitting over here. He's a lobbyist. Everything he said to you, he was shaking his head "yes," and if you don't like that, we'll change it. We'll do this. We'll do this. Who's he working for. I'd like to know. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: He works for the county, Mr. Bailey. MR. BAILEY: Well, he seemed like he's a lobbyist for these gentlemen. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well -- MR. BAILEY: If you -- go back and watch what he said earlier; just watch it. Anyhow, I agree with what else was said here, and I don't think there's any room for it. And I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Is there anyone else that would like to be heard that did not fill out a form? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No? Okay. At this time we'll turn it back over to you, Rich, for rebuttal and questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: I dropped my papers. Can you give me just one second? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thanks. I can assure you Mr. Bosi doesn't work for my side of the table. I've dealt with him for all of the years and -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I know he doesn't, Mr. Yovanovich. I think what -- I think what we need to do is put up Mike's stat sheet on how many things never get here because he stops them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I think the general public doesn't understand how many people come to me or to Mr. Arnold and say, "We want to do A, B, and C," and we say, "No, that's never going to fly. I don't want my hands on it." I could tell you I've never been here at a podium on a project that I'm embarrassed to be here on or think it would be detrimental to any community that's surrounded by that project. And nobody on this team -- we've all been here a long time and have worked hard to improve Collier County with the different projects we represent. I want to talk about facts, because I know every project that we bring forward now is by a residential neighborhood, and there's always fear and concern about what is this project going to do to the neighborhood. Let's start with the fact -- can we go back to the visualizer? Let's start with the fact that this property is already zoned for commercial uses on the property. I'm not asking you to take a residential piece of property and create commercial uses on the property. There's already commercial uses on the property. People are concerned about traffic. Fact: We're asking you to reduce the amount of traffic we can generate from this site. Your staff has reviewed that and has verified we're going from 238 peak-hour trips to 62 peak-hour trips. I'm not a math whiz, but that's probably PENDING APPROVALPage 37 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 34 of 51 25 percent of the traffic that could currently go on that site. We're asking you to reduce that traffic. We are not taking anybody's access away from Myrtle Lane. Mr. Jones can still go home on Myrtle Lane. He does not have to drive through the U-Haul site to get home. That's not what we're asking to do. Myrtle Lane will stay Myrtle Lane all the way to U.S. 41. What we're doing is we're giving the people who live on Myrtle Lane the opportunity to get to a traffic signal to take a left-hand turn to go towards town should they choose to do so. That's what we're doing. We're not closing Myrtle Lane, and we're not saying -- one of the speakers said, we'll, we're not even going to activate -- we're not going to use the light. We are going to use the light. That is part of what this project is is we will be using the traffic signal which would mean we can go right towards Miami and we go left towards downtown out from -- at a safe controlled access. We are on 41. I'm not going to say nobody will ever make the mistake of turning left on Myrtle to get to 41 to get out with a truck, but I don't think people who come to rent a truck at U-Haul are going to go on Myrtle down towards a residential neighbor when they have a safe move at a traffic signal to leave the site and to come back to the site. So traffic is not a safety concern. Every one of our vehicles are gas. Our vehicles you can rent with a regular driver's license. Maximum size is 26 feet, not 32 feet, by a prior speaker; 26 feet. I've driven them. I probably -- most of you have -- I don't know, maybe you haven't. But I've driven one of those. I'm okay driving it. I don't want to do it for a living, but yes, I have used a U-Haul truck to move stuff and put them in a storage facility and brought back the truck. It would have been nice if I could have just gone to the storage facility where I rented the truck and not have to drive the truck and drop it off somewhere else. Factually, there is a demand for indoor self-storage in Collier County. They don't build these facilities and hope they're going to get occupied. Go around. Try to find one that has significant vacancies in them. They rent up really quickly because, basically, people don't have storage. I have one. I have -- you know, it basically is my -- most people use their garage. I don't have a garage. I have a storage facility. I go to it probably once a month to get the Christmas ornaments, to get the Thanksgiving decorations, Halloween, things like that. We use it. But they're not high-traffic generators, and they are compatible with residential. On Pine Ridge Road, at U.S. 41 and Pine Ridge Road, there's a LockUp storage. Wayne and I worked on that before there was this proliferation of indoor self-storage. Our neighbor, the immediate -- immediate south -- closer than what we're asking for right now, residential. We're a quiet use, and it actually buffers sounds because the building itself acts as a buffer to traffic on U.S. 41. So it's compatible with residential neighborhoods. It should be located near residential because residential are the primary users. We can't have businesses operating out of this. We haven't asked for that use. We have 3,000 square feet of retail. It's going to be in the big building, and it's going to serve U-Haul. So if there's -- if somebody's operating a business that's in another one of these, that's probably a code enforcement violation, and that needs to be looked into. But we're not allowed to have that operated on our site. So that's a factually incorrect statement by one of the speakers. PENDING APPROVALPage 38 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 35 of 51 Drainage. Well, we're at a zoning hearing, but I could put my civil engineer up here and talk about how the site will be bermed to make sure that water is contained on site, that it's not a free-flow of water going all over into the neighborhood and that it will be held back and it will be allowed to discharge at the adopted discharge rate. That's the fact about drainage. If there's pervious area or impervious area -- impervious area, we have to account for that water, keep it on our site, and discharge it at the adopted rate. It's not going to be a free flow of water, and we're not going to flood out our neighbors. That is -- probably nine out of 10 hearings I attend they say you're going to flood us. In fact, we're probably going to make it a little bit better. In most situations, there is a free flow of water right now because it rains. The water goes wherever the water goes. Now when it rains, we're going to keep it on site, and we're going to discharge it at the county's adopted discharge rate. I know people don't like change. We -- this is a commercial site, end of story. That was a pretty picture that was put up there by some consultant who decided that this is what they would like to see happen on the East Trail. Taking into consideration that that was a beautiful picture that will probably never happen, did you see the road that was going to extend parallel to U.S. 41 that doesn't exist? There's -- you know, those are beautiful, beautiful pictures, but they're not real-world pictures. This site's not going to develop like it was pictured in that picture. This is -- by Mr. Bosi and your staff -- it takes us almost a year to get here from when we submit, and it takes that long because we go back and forth about what changes would staff like to see; what could be better? We had asked for deviation said to the architectural standards. Staff said, "Absolutely not. No deviations to the architectural standards." We gave up on those deviations to the architectural stands. We had asked for deviations to the sign code. Staff said, "Absolutely not." We gave up on the deviations to the sign code. We didn't get a rubber stamp to get here. We went long and hard. We didn't want the interconnection. "Please take it away from us." We would not -- we would prefer not to have people drive through the site, but it's a benefit to the neighborhood. It's not a lot of traffic that's going to come through this site to get to the traffic signal to head back west into town. This is a good project. It is a safe project, and if their true concerns are safety related to traffic -- which I think everybody seems to say traffic, traffic, traffic -- this is better. Undisputed, factually correct, this is a better scenario for traffic than what can happen on the site today. And the person who kept saying there were a lot of misrepresentations made in our presentation, I don't know of any misrepresentation made in this presentation. And when he talked about whether or not motor vehicle dealerships are allowed -- I heard him say he doesn't believe that that's true -- Use No. 25 in the current PUD is motor vehicle dealers, new only. So I can't put a Stearns Motors there, but I can put a new dealership there. And what comes with new dealerships? Maintenance of those vehicles and other things like that. We're not asking for maintenance of the vehicles on this site. So if he's got anything else that he wants to tell me that our team didn't say that was true, I'm happy to address them. Everything we say when we're here, we're under oath. We tell you the truth. And the truth is this is a better project traffic-wise and is more safe than what can be there under the current zoning. PENDING APPROVALPage 39 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 36 of 51 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Rich -- Mr. Yovanovich, could you slide that down a little bit? I just want to see that top line. Eating places except for caterers and industrial, industrial food services. Would that site allow a drive-in restaurant and outdoor televisions and speakers and amplifiers? Is that the way that reads? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it says I can't have outdoor entertainment or outdoor televisions, no. But I can have -- I can have restaurants, I can have -- restaurants that are fast food drive-throughs absolutely can go on that site. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. You sure they want to do a videotape rental? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, I don't think my kids even know what a videotape rental is. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: But, you know -- but those used to be popular if you owned any -- if you had stock in Blockbuster, you know. You better rewind, or they fined you. But with that, that's our presentation. This is a good project. This is a safe project. We're going to meet all the architectural standards. And this property is a commercial site that we're asking to make modifications to the commercial site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck, this is Joe. I have a couple of comments. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rich. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You mentioned the drainage. Just for clarification, I want to make sure that the public understands that the drainage will still have to go through the ERP process, that's the Environmental Resource Permit process, through the South Florida Water Management District, is that correct, for this site? Can your engineer testify to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'll have Mr. Delate come up here and tell you -- put on the record that we've got to go through the Water Management District permitting process, and what the discharge would be. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mike, can do that. And I just would like for him -- because there was a comment made about drainage, and I would like to have him put something on the record. Thanks. But before you do that, the other is there was a comment about servicing a vehicle. You made that clear, but I would like for you to stress that again. And the third point I would ask that you would clarify, what is the extent of the propane services? Is this a -- just a distribution center for tanks, or will there be filling and refilling of tanks? I would like to get some clarification on that. Thanks. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. You will be able to -- there will be propane that the general public can come and access as part of this -- as part of this. So, yeah, the -- there will be -- you can refill your tank there, you know. I guess at some point, if your vehicle uses propane, you can use propane there. And we also are providing charging stations for electrical vehicles for the general public. So there's a lot of general public benefit. It's safe. It will go through the Site Development Plan review process to address all at regulations associated with the propane sales. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you'll be dealing with bulk propane rather than just exchanging one tank for another? MR. YOVANOVICH: You could fill your tank there, yes, sir. PENDING APPROVALPage 40 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 37 of 51 COMMISSIONER SHEA: You can actually fill it, okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Will the reserve tank be above ground? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Below ground? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's above. It's an above-ground tank. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. So we don't see that on the proposed master plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is not a Site Development Plan level criteria. That will all be addressed at the Site Development Plan, just like the electrical vehicle charging stations and things like that will all be part of the Site Development Plan review process. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Before you get into that drainage, Commissioner Petscher, you had a question, sir? COMMISSIONER PESTCHER: Yeah, I have a couple of questions. You did mention that it will -- all these vehicles will go off site to be maintained. Where will they be -- where's the closest maintenance facility for these vehicles? MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you know where it is? I don't know where the closest -- I'm assuming they're going to have to have an industrial area that they can do the motor vehicle. COMMISSIONER PESTCHER: My second question is I went through the neighborhood information meeting, and I read all the opposition e-mails. Was there any oppositions from Treetops or anybody at the Manor? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't recall seeing any -- definitely not the Manor, and I don't recall anybody from Treetops coming in speaking on this. COMMISSIONER PESTCHER: My final question is Myrtle Drive -- or Myrtle Lane there, you did mention that you do believe maybe some people might go -- make the wrong turn. MR. YOVANOVICH: I said I'm not going to say it will never happen, because the minute I say that, someone's going to make that turn. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Absolutely. MR. YOVANOVICH: But why would you ever go left unless you're renting a vehicle? COMMISSIONER PESTCHER: Now, is there any plans to make -- two-part question. Is there any plans to make improvements to that road? And my second part of that question is would be developer be in favor or opposed to actually making -- widening the first -- first 100 feet, or whatever it is, to your driveway there? Because as we've heard from a number of the residents, it is a very narrow road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and, Commissioner Petscher, when we do our site review, staff will talk to us about whether it -- based upon what traffic impacts we may have to Myrtle, what upgrades we may have to make to our entrance. I don't know that -- probably a sidewalk, for sure, but I don't know that there will be anything beyond that necessary related to our use of Myrtle related to our project. COMMISSIONER PESTCHER: Is there going to be a turn lane on 41 there turning into that place? MR. TREBILCOCK: That's something we would evaluate and determine and work with the department whether they would want to put that in or not and require it, depending on PENDING APPROVALPage 41 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 38 of 51 the traffic volume and speeds and such. And similar, as Rich mentioned, on the access road on Myrtle, the county will look to maintain at least the minimum standards up to the access point as well. COMMISSIONER PESTCHER: No further questions. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Before I get to Commissioner McLeod, I do want to hear about the drainage that Chair Schmitt was asking about, please. MR. DELATE: Good morning. For the record, Mike Delate with Grady Minor. I'm an engineer there. As Mr. Schmitt alluded to, this project is at the Water Management District right now for a review of the ERP application. So we will have to meet all the criteria of the Water Management District. And then the discharge from the site, you can see the designated water management area here. There's a county-maintained ditch and drainage easement that runs east/west along the southern property here and will discharge into that. And the county, under the Site Development Plan review, will review that discharge rate and location. Yeah, somewhere there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike, thanks. Thanks for putting that on the record. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Mr. Yovanovich, thank you for addressing some of the concerns that were brought up by the residents. Just a couple that were not addressed yet, one being the -- and maybe this is for Mike, Mr. Bosi. The community towards the south of this development, there was a comment that was made that it would -- this project would -- I can't think of another word, but "trap" the land on the other side. There would be no access to that available land with this project. Is that true? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know what access -- honestly, I've not done the legal research on what their access point is today. So to answer the question, this project's not causing anything from a land-locking. The facts are what the facts are. This project's been here and approved in a different -- that's in a PUD right now. Where these parcels are getting their access, I don't know. Maybe they're accessing 6th. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: It's just an interesting question. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: How does one plan for something like this in the future when you have a parcel in the middle of other areas? How does access get planned? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And I may have to lean upon our Transportation staff for that, but in terms of -- the consideration for where access was to be provided for the agricultural parcels was never, I believe, contemplated by this -- by the current -- the current PUD. Transportation would have to look at the various avenues. I would say it would be either 7th, 6th, 5th or 4th is where access would have to be provided, down one of those local streets to be able to access those parcels if they were ever, you know, requesting development, which at some point in time they will. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And I'm sure the owner of that parcel knows about this project, and if there were concerns, he would have addressed them. MR. BOSI: There are a number of individual parcels. They're very -- they're smaller than the five-acre requirement for -- that ag has. I think they're probably about -- maybe less PENDING APPROVALPage 42 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 39 of 51 than an acre or acre lots, so they're all individual owners. So I think what the problem is is with individual owners, the assembly of land is going to be -- would be difficult. But at some point in time, this land will be developed, and they'll have to find access to that location. But it's never been contemplated, or there's never been a reservation from a transportation perspective related to any of the property that's within the current commercial PUD or anything proposed for the amendment to the PUD. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And then, Mr. Yovanovich, you had said that this is commercially zoned. You wouldn't -- you're not asking for anything outside of that, but there is one parcel that's the RM-6. MR. YOVANOVICH: RMF-6, that is correct, that 1.2 acres we are adding to this. But at the end of the day, I already have in place over seven acres that can have 61,000 square feet of retail and significantly more traffic. We are -- you're correct that we are adding the 1.2 acres of residential multifamily to the overall project. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that for the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. I understand. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And I think my only last question is there was a concern about safety and a child crossing the street to go to high school. MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, I don't want to sound insensitive. We already could put 238 p.m. peak-hour trips on this site. I'm asking you to let me reduce that to 62 p.m. peak-hour trips. There's a traffic signal there. It's tragic when someone goes through a red light. It is tragic. That's going to happen, and it happens. We are improving the safety by reducing the number of trips coming and going from this site. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That could potentially be on that site. MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be on that site if it's something else. We are reducing the number of potential trips coming and going to this site into that intersection and potentially increasing the number of accidents that could occur by people crossing the street to go to the high school or to businesses along there or homes that they're visiting. I think we're -- we're improving traffic safety. I think that's factually correct. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Secretary Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for Mike. I guess I don't want to give up on this. What would it take to not have an access on Myrtle? I just -- I know it's required. To me that seems like it's going to really make the whole situation worse. If you -- I'd rather see you eliminate the Myrtle access to the property. MR. BOSI: From Transportation's perspective, we think there's a benefit of allowing the folks on Myrtle Lane to access the transportation -- to access the existing traffic light to be able to have a safer egress to the north and to the west. There was -- there was an opportunity -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: They didn't seem to really like it. MR. BOSI: I'm not sure -- I haven't heard any of the folks say that they did not want access to that light. I haven't heard that. They haven't they've said they don't want this project. I don't think that -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I don't want to drive through a project on a road that doesn't even belong to us. We have to drive through it. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: We're not speaking, please. PENDING APPROVALPage 43 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 40 of 51 MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't have to come through our property. Go straight on Myrtle Road and take a right turn. We're not asking you to come through our property. We're giving you the opportunity if you want. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So what's wrong with just eliminating that? And I know you're doing it because we're asking you to do it, so I'm not -- MR. BOSI: The access -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's a benefit only. I mean, it doesn't -- MR. BOSI: It's safety -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: If you don't do it, they have the same situation they've had for years. MR. BOSI: It's a safety benefit. It's an additional measure -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, wow. MR. BOSI: -- of public safety benefit. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's -- I think it's more unsafe going through the site. MR. YOVANOVICH: They don't have to, Commissioner Shea. Those who want to go through the site -- and believe me, there were people at the NIM that said we want to get to that light because we want to go -- I guess that's north, but my instincts tells me it's west because the beach is always to the west -- going north so they can go without having to come out and take a right and find a place to make that U-turn with their boat trailer. MR. BOSI: And I would -- that's simply staff's perspective. Staff is going to advocate for allowing that. If the Planning Commission has felt well within your right to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that that easement be extinguished and not provide that access to the traffic light, if that's the perspective of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Could we have a discussion on that? That is a pretty valid point. I didn't recognize that it was something we could suggest or possibly push back on. Mike, I'm understanding it was a recommendation, a request, not a demand from -- MR. BOSI: The current PUD has that access allowance and requirement. Transportation saw value within that access allowance for individuals making a northwest movement accessing the light. Transportation -- or that's Transportation's perspective. That's staff's perspective. We are recommending that that maintain -- that stays within the amended PUD. The Planning Commission most certainly can have a different perspective if they feel that it creates more of an issue than a benefit. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. I open up for a chance for conversation between the Board here. I apologize, I did not recognize we could supersede that, shall I say. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add to the conversation? What we originally had that identified as is an emergency access for fire, police, or whatever to get to the site. We would like it -- that's what we had it as is emergency only. I think that's important for there to at least be emergency access to this site for fire and others to get there. If you want to close it off to everything else but only emergency for us, we're fine with that, but that wasn't what the original PUD said, and that's not what Transportation said, and that's not what several of the people at the neighborhood information meeting said regarding wanting to have access to that light. PENDING APPROVALPage 44 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 41 of 51 Again, we'd rather not have it, but I think it's fair that we let you know that there were others who thought that having access to that light was a public benefit. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And I understand that. I wanted to make sure that we weren't going different amongst the requirements or regulations, and if there's no need for discussion and we don't wish to do anything and let at the stand as-is, fine. I just put two and two together here now and recognized we could make a recommendation if we thought it was in the best public interest not to have that. And to piggyback that comment, first of all, I'd like to thank the public for coming up and expressing your thoughts, concerns, and wishes. But I do want to make sure the public recognizes we are an advisory-only position board. Everything you said, if you wish, will be more potent if you go to the Board of County Commissioners and redo your stances and make your statements. We are advisory. There have been many times when the Board -- BCC will go different than what we recommend. So I just wanted to make sure you recognize that. We're advisory only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If you want to -- it would be good to hear from Norm and Mike just to get their professional opinion on whether -- is it really safer to go through -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: A parking lot. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- a parking lot versus just continue doing what you're already doing. They're the professionals. I'm not. I'm just raising the question. It doesn't seem like it would be to me. So I don't know if that's worth Norm commenting on it and maybe Mike. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think you should -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, I think this is -- to me this is common sense. The thought of people, residents going through a business's lot to get to the street to me is crazy. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: My view is leave it the way it is now. If you're going to build this thing, leave it the way it is now as it relates to how these residents get to 41, but don't tempt the residents to drive through a parking lot. Just, common sense, makes no sense. MR. YOVANOVICH: Before Mike gets up here, the history of that provision was the residents on Myrtle Lane wanted the access to the light. That's the history of when it was put in there in 2006. If they want to change their mind, that's fine. I'll let the professionals talk about whether it's a good idea to not give them an opportunity to get to a light or not. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, they can't get to the light now, right? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I don't understand. To me it's a common-sense issue. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Public comment is closed at this time, please. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: To me it's just simply common sense. My common sense is I don't want to give these residents the temptation of driving through someone else's parking lot to get access to 41 when they already have it. And I have nothing else to say. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. Mike. MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. Part of it is that it is already something that's part of the PUD. And we look at this PENDING APPROVALPage 45 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 42 of 51 somewhat similarly than -- as we do with an interconnection where we're trying to contact, you know, road lengths, and especially in this case we're trying to get traffic more easily onto 41 and allowing them to go east and west, north/south, whichever way you want to look at it. It also eliminates, primarily, the need for people that are wanting to go northwest from doing a U-turn movement. And a lot of people don't like doing those, quite honestly. And if you are able to get to a signal, we view that as a good thing for traffic. Now, as far as how the traffic is actually going to go through the parcel, that's going to be done when we get to the point of having a Site Development Plan, which lays everything out. And at that point, staff is going to want to make sure that it does have a clear path from Myrtle Lane over to the signal. How that's going to happen, we don't know yet because we haven't seen the site plan. I don't know if that helps you with, you know, your conversation, with your discussion. I'm just saying that's how we looked at it, something that's already in the PUD, and we looked at it as a good thing to retain. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mike -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Sorry. Mike, it also looks as if people heading -- I'll do a Mr. Yovanovich -- towards the beach, okay, on 41, they'll be able to turn left and go into this establishment to get to Myrtle Lane, because right now they can't. They'd have to go past Myrtle Lane, do a U-turn, come down and turn right into Myrtle Lane, correct? MR. SAWYER: Agreed. And, again, that's another U-turn movement that would not be required. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. We're looking at two-way traffic not just -- we're looking at two-way traffic to and from Myrtle Lane, not just Myrtle Lane residents exiting through this parking lot to go to the beach. MR. SAWYER: We always look at both directions, sir. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. So there could be more movement through this parking lot by people going to -- going to work and also returning from work to home. So there could be two cars -- probably very, very minor chance, but there could be two cars of Myrtle residents in this parking lot going to and from the home, to and from the light, correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: All right. MR. SAWYER: And keep in mind, even if we're looking at a situation where the site plan looks like it has basically parking areas. Well, you need to have parking islands/landscape islands in all of those areas at a starting point. That's just for normal traffic in a normal parking lot. In this case what we've got a requirement for staff to look at is also making sure that there's a clear path, again, from Myrtle over to the signal. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's the hard part we have is we struggle -- I do -- visualizing how you're going to do that. And we see an empty parking lot that looks like chaos. We're not professional traffic -- transportation people, so we can't visualize how you're going to make that safe, so that's part of our concern. MR. SAWYER: I understand. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Obviously, you have some ideas, but it's not time yet. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And that would come up during the Site Development Plan. PENDING APPROVALPage 46 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 43 of 51 MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mike, can you think of any offhand that have -- another piece of property that has this type of easement that has been built out? Can you think of anything offhand? MR. SAWYER: The only thing that I can draw to would a normal shopping center where you've got a -- if you will, a main strip where it has multiple -- you know, multiple businesses, you know, on a large area, and then you also have out-parcels. Well, the way that you have those sites organized is that you have specific out-parcels, and generally you have a road that kind of leads you around and then have individual areas going out to the out-parcels and back to the main center itself. So a bit of it is really -- it really comes down to correctly site planning the project itself to make sure that you're accommodating, and this is going to be one of the requirements. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: You're all going to get used to me eventually. I think we're spending too much time in the weeds here. The issue here -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Welcome to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I mean, the issue here is are we going to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that this project be approved or not approved. And I feel the issue of whether we allow people to drive through the parking lot or not is not something that we should be overly debating, you know, at this point. There'll come a time, I guess, where that has to be decided, but does it have to be decided now? What has to be decided now is are we going to approve this project or aren't we. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So let's get on with it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, what we're looking at is if we were going to approve it with a condition. That's what we were kind of discussing, whether we add a condition to it. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, I guess I've learned something else, I mean... CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. All right. Anybody else have a question? Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner McLeod. Sorry. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I do know of a development that accesses a commercial area to gain access to a main road. That is the Target and Forest Lake behind it. And, Mike, maybe you know -- you know how there's Woodshire Lane? MR. SAWYER: I believe so I do, yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And so that community can access the Target plaza to get out onto Pine Ridge. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Is there any accidents or anything like that that we need to be concerned about in that parking area? MR. SAWYER: I don't think that we've had any major, you know, accident reports as long as that, you know, center's been there, and I know it's been there well over 20 years. It was there when I, you know -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: In the '90s, yeah, the early '90s. MR. SAWYER: Yeah, exactly. It seems to work quite well, quite honestly. I go to that center myself quite often. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's just an example of one that is in existence. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. I was racking my brain trying to think PENDING APPROVALPage 47 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 44 of 51 of one. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. I'm like, "Wait, I know of one." MR. SAWYER: It's one of those interconnection opportunities that we like to see happen with developments, and all too often we're not able to gain them. It works well for the community. It usually works quite well for the commercial center itself. This is a little different only because it's a single use, primarily. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'd like to make a statement that at this point if we move forward with a vote one way or the other, that we just ask the staff and the developer to look at any and all possibilities to maintain this egress at the light or, if it is not needed, to remove it; more or less removing any conditions that we may put because we don't know exactly what that Site Development Plan's going to look like. We don't know what it's going to shape up to look like, especially with a large LP tank, access easement, whatever that case may be. I think the best thing for this commission to do is to move forward with a vote but do not put any restrictions, plus or minus, against the Myrtle Lane access point. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: When it comes to that turn lane, I don't think U-Haul trucks needs to be on Myrtle Lane, period. If this thing's going to go forward, there's got to be a way to keep -- and I know Rich said, "You can't stop everybody from going there," whatever. I think it needs to be -- it needs to be on record, and it needs to be in the -- in this agreement that, you know, trucks aren't allowed onto that road. You don't want people trying to test drive a U-Haul truck down a residential street. I know what they're talking about with the closeness of the vehicles. Any street you drive down in Golden Gate Estates is the exact same thing; one car's got to get off the road and get on the grass. The other one can stay in the lane. That's what it is. But I think there's got to be something in there that puts that liability on the operator that if a U-Haul truck goes down that road and there's an accident, it's on them because they were told not to be test driving on Myrtle Lane, period. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you should add a condition similar to what we did at Covenant Presbyterian Church -- or Covenant Church now. It think they dropped the Presbyterian. The Pine Ridge community was concerned about people leaving church and driving through the neighborhood. So the two roads that are on the north side and the south side of that church both prohibit -- well, one prohibits a right, and one prohibits a left. So they sign it to say that you can't do that. So I think we should put the same signage at that entrance that says, you know, "right turn only," "no left turns," so -- which will be interesting, because the person who -- I guess anybody who wants to rent a truck on Myrtle Lane will go out on 41 and do a U-turn to come back home. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Exactly. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, you laugh. But I lived in -- I lived in Pine Ridge, and if I ever went to that church, I never drove back through my neighborhood. I honored the sign. You know, I went -- I just went and did the circuitous route, and they'll have to do the same. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. I had a couple other things on here. The signage, let me get back to that signage. That has been a concern that has come up. What PENDING APPROVALPage 48 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 45 of 51 type of signage does U-Haul use? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to meet the code. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: What is the code on that signage? MR. YOVANOVICH: The code allows, I think, one sign on the building. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: One sign on the building and -- monument? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We're going to have -- we're allowed monument signs. We're allowed a building sign. We're going to meet the code. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Not a 30-foot billboard -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: -- with big fluorescent lights? MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever the code -- the code maximum is what we'll go with. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck, this is Joe. Yeah, the sign standards for the county are, quite honestly, quite strict. I'm very familiar with it. And they will have to meet the code requirements, and that will all be reviewed during the SDP process. And this petition has no variance at all or nor have we even discussed any variance. So based on what they're asking for, they have to meet the code requirements, as Rich just stated. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. The drainage was obviously also an issue. Mike, I'm going to kick this over to you. You have to refresh my memory, but I believe if you're drainage leaves your property and damages another, that's -- that's on the offending property, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, no, no. There's a limit to the size of the storm. I mean, there's -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, yeah. I understand that, but -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: There's criteria. So the argument is, what is the storm? Is it a five-day storm? A five-year? A 50-year? But there is a limit. They have -- they can't collect every drop of water that could possibly end up on their property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Yeah. When the hurricane comes, I'm sure there's some water leaving. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. Southwest has determined certain standards that they have to retain. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: The concern about the self-storage turning into a business, I understand Mr. Bailey's concern, because if you drive down Airport-Pulling, right across the street from the RaceTrac, there's a storage. It looked like it was a storage facility at one point in time and then converted into, like -- almost like a small shop type of deal where each bay has got a different vendor in it. And as long as the code does not allow for that to happen, and if it does, there's consequences that go through with that as well. MR. BOSI: And, Chair, I can assure you that our code does not allow for those roll-up doors to be designed, so there will be no -- there will be no opportunity for individual units like that. Everything will have to be accessed and interior to the storage facility. There's no -- there's no allowance for roll-up doors with -- anywhere where you can see the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, those are typical business condos type of thing -- requirements. This -- this would have -- we could make a stipulation very clear in our PENDING APPROVALPage 49 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 46 of 51 recommendation that there will be no allowance for separate businesses on site. This is strictly a low-impact storage facility, and that's exactly what they're asking for. Plus, of course, the issue with rentals. MR. YOVANOVICH: But don't -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Please understand that indoor self-storage is allowed to have roll-up units. I just want to make sure nobody's under the impression that we're not going to have any roll-up units. We are, but you can't have any businesses operating out -- within those roll-up doors. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: And they don't front the parking lot to where they're accessible to the public if they were to walk up to it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. There -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: You have to go inside. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's locational requirements that we haven't asked for a deviation from. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I thought Mrs. Fuller brought up a good point on that East Naples design that was presented. I thought that was -- as you said, that was a rendering that what was done on what they thought would look good there, but if I was a resident, that's what I would think that they were being sold at that point in time. But, Mike, I believe -- wasn't there -- there was a statute that went into place that put any hold on that type of -- because we were talking about that East Naples -- there was a moratorium that was placed by the State. MR. BOSI: The East Naples Development Plan, like I said, it was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2020. In -- or in 2023, we adopted the overlay to implement it within the GMP, and that was to increase the density and the heights allowed within the community and the regional centers, but the design standards and the spatial requirements that were suggested by the East Naples Development Plan could not be adopted within a zoning overlay until October 1st of 2026 because of -- the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 250, and 250 says that communities that were struck by Hurricane Ian and, I think, Hurricane Frances [sic], within 100 miles of both of those storms were not allowed to adopt any more restrictive regulations to their Land Development Code until October 1st of 2026. So those -- that overlay to implement the East Naples Development Plan cannot be adopted until October 1st of 2026 per the code -- or per the statute. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Question for the County Attorney. I'm sorry you haven't gotten any questions today. I feel like I've got to start sending some over. So if someone were to vote no on this and say it's nonconforming but then somebody comes in and puts a car dealership in, how do those two compare? Or is it just because of the wording that's in the usage for that parcel? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I believe, according to staff, the car dealership is a permitted -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- use under the current Myrtle PUD that exists. The warehousing is sometimes both in the C-5 and also the industrial zoning districts. So I don't know if I'm really answering your question. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No, that makes sense. I was just trying to -- PENDING APPROVALPage 50 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 47 of 51 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: -- put the two together, because when you try to find a way to not approve it, you have to have, obviously, a basis for it legally. You just can't say, "I don't like this." There has to be something, whether it was, what, safety or -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the GMP is a lesser standard, so you just have to state some sort of reasonable basis. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The PUD, you've got -- you have to rely on some of the testimony and the experts to establish competent evidence, competent substantial evidence. But the PUD can't be approved if the GMP is not approved. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I have. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead, Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That drew me to wonder about something. So the GMP amendment would allow for increased intensity to this -- these parcels. Now, when I look at what's currently there, the height of those buildings are 50 feet, allowable 50 feet, and that's what they're doing? Like, what -- what are they increasing in intensity? MR. BOSI: The square footage and the actual -- one of the -- the use of self -- indoor self-storage is a C-5 permitted use. So they are increasing one use -- the intensity of one use that's associated with the C-5 zoning district where the current existing PUD allows for C-1 to C-3 uses. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And the current PUD, how -- what's the square footage allowable? MR. BOSI: Sixty-two thousand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sixty-one, 61,000. And I just want to clarify. Actually, self-storage is a conditional use in C-4 zoning. And the unfortunate thing is the way our code is set up, it's -- it uses the SIC code book, and the SIC code book really sends you to -- I guess it doesn't work. It does. You see, the SIC code book really refers to the old-fashioned mini warehouses, that you are an industrial in character. It doesn't refer to the self-storage that is really being built in Collier County, which is the indoor self-storage, air -- indoor air-conditioned self-storage. So from an intensity-of-use standpoint, I'm sure I can put many planners up here to say that the 200,000 square feet of indoor self-storage is actually a reduction in intensity from what can be currently allowed on that site. If you simply look at traffic, you probably look at any of the other services provided to the site as far as fire and police, it's going to be a far less intense use than can currently be placed on that site. But Mike's right, I mean, we're dealing with an SIC code book that refers to the old-fashioned, you know, stuff that, you know, when I was a kid everybody was building that was those metal -- metal one-story, "you better pray it doesn't rain" type of facility versus what's really being built. I don't think you could compare indoor air-conditioned self-storage to the type of SIC code manual, self-storage. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: But this is square footage, though. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, intensity of square footage, you can look at -- if you want to look purely at the number of square feet, yeah, it's bigger, but is that more intense? Is that 200,000 square feet increasing the intensity of what's going on on that site? Bigger building, but every other service to that site is reduced. PENDING APPROVALPage 51 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 48 of 51 COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Mike, can I get your opinion on that? MR. BOSI: There most certainly -- I mean, it's specifically the intensity of use. So there's more square footage that's allowed, but the square footage -- the use that's associated with that square footage is self-storage. The traffic generation for self-storage is considerably lower than the traffic generation -- or traffic attraction that commercial uses provide. Commercial uses -- commercial users attract trips, and retail attracts trips at a much higher rate than a self-storage facility. And, I mean, that's -- that's just based upon the ITE and many traffic studies. The intensity of a self-storage facility is relatively low in terms of trip generation. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So the definition of "intensity" is not just the square footage. It's, like, the overall -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- intensity of the project. MR. BOSI: I could give you an example: An office complex. An office complex of 20,000 square feet would generate a -- would generate a traffic count of, say, 200, but if that was medical office, medical office attracts a much higher trip generation because of the turns. Medical office has a lot of customers coming in. Your normal office environment is a set work staff, maybe some visitors, some businesses, some customers, but nowhere near as many trip -- nowhere near as many attractions in trips that are generated comparatively to a medical office. So it does matter, not just the square footage that's required, but the type of square footage and what type of intensity is associated with that from a traffic generation, from a water consumption, from a waste disposal, from a noise, from a pollution, from all the other factors that we look at in terms of intensity. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: At this time I would like to move forward with a proposal to -- a proposal for our PL20230016211 and its companion PL20230016212 for approval with the following caveats -- and, fellow commissioners, I may not get them all, so please add to this -- first one -- and, Rich, help me with this, please -- is signage at the Myrtle Lane exit, should that exit exist, which says "right-hand turn only," I believe. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second is the cost for the traffic signal modification, should there need to be any, would fall 100 percent on the petitioner, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And third, as minor as it seems, have no public address PA system installed that would annunciate outdoors for calling in workers that they may have a phone call or something within the office building. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I would add that we will have a Type B buffer along Myrtle Lane, and we would leave our Type D buffer that we described for the type -- for the buffer along U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, anything else that I have not -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Randy? Randy? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I would add also -- I would add also -- and I'm going to leave it up to the County Attorney to craft language, but I want to limit any type of PENDING APPROVALPage 52 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 49 of 51 maintenance on site. I know there's what I would call typical preventative maintenance and services, but any intense maintenance, we will restrict any of that activity on the site. So I'll let -- I'll ask the County Attorney if they would craft some language in that in the final ordinance. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, Mr. Sparrazza -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the reason I have Norm Trebilcock on my team is he made a very good point. If someone's coming home and they live on Myrtle and they take the traffic signal left in, under that, they just get to keep doing this (indicating) because they can only make a right turn. They can't go home. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Signage possibly modified to "no trucks." MR. YOVANOVICH: I think what we need -- we need to prohibit -- I'm sorry, Terri. We have to prohibit people who are using our site from taking a left onto Myrtle. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: For rental vehicles. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Yeah, no rental vehicles shall take -- shall use Myrtle -- shall use -- take a left. It's right turn only for rental vehicles. I think that's what you want, because you don't want to prohibit people coming home from being able to take a left. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thanks, Mike, for clarifying. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And I can work with Mr. Yovanovich on all of these conditions to make sure that they reflect what our understanding of your motion is. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And possibly a final one is to have the Board take into account allowing the staff to work with the -- not plaintiff. I'm sorry. It could be -- with the petitioner for making sure the exit onto Myrtle is the best interest for all parties, the residents, safety, fire, ambulance and/or people using the U-Haul. And I don't know how we word that, but just making sure that's on the record that the staff will do a deep dive reviewing that entrance/egress onto Myrtle. With that, I'm satisfied with our conditions. Anybody have anything else, or shall we move to a vote? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Was that a motion? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That was a motion. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: That was a motion. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second it. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Second. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: We have a second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Motion and second. Commissioner McLeod, you did have your light on. Did you have something on add? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. So there's a first and second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. PENDING APPROVALPage 53 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 50 of 51 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye (delayed response.) COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: No. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Joe? MR. YOVANOVICH: Were you for or against? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm for. MR. YOVANOVICH: For, okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's okay with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All right. Motion approved. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I voted no. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could you please state your reason for the negative vote? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, I'll try. I don't know if it passes muster. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's okay. It helps the Board of County Commissioners in their review. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: If it doesn't pass muster, then I abstain. I am moved by the feelings of the residents. I doubt that this is an asset to the area, and I'm not in favor of the unchecked spread of storage facilities. That's why I vote no. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Moving on. Next item is old business. Do we have any old business? Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is Commissioner Schmitt again. The resident who spoke up about there's a significant amount of land east on the Trail, I would encourage that citizen to talk to the county staff. Mike Bosi, I think if you can share the Future Land Use Map and indicate that though it appears there's a lot of land to the east, there are certainly very significant restrictions with the Rural Fringe and Rural Land requirements and other things. So I'm not going to get into that now, but I think that it would be educational for that -- when that issue was brought up, to understand that it isn't what one would appear if you drove down the East Trail. It's very restricted. Anyways, thanks. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Chair. Old business. Any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. Is there any public comment on any item that would like to be heard that is not on the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. With that -- PENDING APPROVALPage 54 of 702 November 21, 2024 Page 51 of 51 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: State when our next meeting will be. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Our next meeting will be December 19th? MR. BOSI: December 19th. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: December 19th will be our next meeting at 9 a.m., which Chair Schmitt will be at. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: He better be. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: He's greatly missed by all. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You've done a great job. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you've done a good job. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: The last meeting was 58 minutes. I thought that was perfect. This one -- Chair Schmitt said there was a softball. I'm not letting him get off that easy. Forget it. We don't want to deal with this, so... MR. BOSI: Chair, you just made the three-hour mark, so I think we could wrap it, right? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I thank God for that. With that being said, we'll stand adjourn, and I wish everybody a very Happy Thanksgiving. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _________________________________________ JOSEPH K. SCHMITT, 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. PENDING APPROVALPage 55 of 702 12/19/2024 Item # 9.A ID# 2024-2037 PL20230004408 - FPL Summit Substation Communication Tower (CU) - 191 Weber Boulevard North - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow a 150-foot tall monopole communications tower that deviates from the required 150-foot separation from residential property by providing an 84-foot separation from residential property to the north and that deviates from the requirement to screen the tower facility with a wall or fence to allow no wall or fence around the tower on lands zoned Estates (E) and designated Residential Estates Subdistrict within the Rural Golden Gate Estate's Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the Collier County Growth Management Plan pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.12 and 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code, located on approximately 613+ square feet of a 4.99+ acre tract located at 191 Weber Boulevard North, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. ATTACHMENTS: 1. FPL Summit Tower-CU Staff Report 2. Att A - Resolution - 111924 3. Att B - Summit Substation Collocation Affidavit 4. Att C - VERIZON WIRELESS_RF_JUSTIFICATION_FPL_SUBSTATION_090982024 5. Att D - Deviation and Justification Statement 6. Att E - Applicants backup 7. Att F - NIM Documents 8. FPL Summit Tower Sign Posting Affidavit Page 56 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 1 of 14 December 10, 2024 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2024 SUBJECT: PL20230004408; FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Florida Power & Light Company Agent(s): James Johnston Property Tax Department Shutts & Bowen LLP 700 Universe Blvd., PSX/JB 300 South Orange Ave., Ste. 1600 Juno Beach, FL 33408 Orlando, FL 32801 Petitioner: Verizon 4700 Exchange Ct., Suite 100 Boca Raton, FL 33431 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Conditional Use petition to allow a 150-foot tall monopole communication tower that deviates from the required 150-foot separation from residential property by providing an 84-foot separation from residential property to the north and that deviates from the requirement to screen the tower facility with a wall or fence to allow no wall or fence around the tower on lands zoned Estates within the Rural Golden Gate Estates, pursuant to Section 2.03.01 B.1.c.12 and Section 5.05.09 E.1 and 5.05.09.H. of the Land Development Code. Per Policy 1.1.8 of the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan adopted in the Growth Management Plan, to obtain conditional use approval, a super majority vote (minimum of 4 votes) by the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be required. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The site is located at 191 Weber Boulevard North (Parcel No. 36710200009), on the east side of Collier Boulevard north of the Collier Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard West intersection in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page.) Page 57 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 2 of 14 December 10, 2024 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks a Conditional Use for a telecommunications tower per LDC Section 2.03.01 B.1.c.12, subject to LDC Section 5.05.09. The request is to install a 150-foot-tall monopole tower with a five-foot lightning road and a 15-foot by 30-foot equipment area. The parent parcel is ±4.99 acres and is occupied by a Florida Power & Light (FP&L) electric substation and a conservation easement along the south and east sides of the property (OR Book 4257, Page 1833). The site is zoned Estates, and the Future Land Use Map designation is Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict within the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The electric substation is a permitted essential service use per LDC Section 2.01.03. The proposed tower is expected to generate minimal traffic, with approximately one maintenance visit per month, or 12 anticipated trips per year, by site technicians. Access to the tower will be provided off Weber Boulevard North via an existing driveway within a 20-foot-wide non- exclusive ingress and egress licensed area. At the time of the original submittal of this petition, the tower did not meet all of the separation distance requirements applicable to communication towers per the LDC, and a companion Variance petition (PL20230007814) was submitted seeking relief from the required 375-foot separations (2.5 times tower height) to the northern southern, and western residential properties. Page 58 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 3 of 14 December 10, 2024 On February 27, 2024, Collier County adopted Ordinance 2024-05, an LDC Amendment related to wireless communication facilities. The LDC was amended to allow tower structures to be separated from off-site abutting Residential or Estate uses by 100% of the tower height, or 150 feet for the requested tower. Additionally, “alternative” tower structures may now be separated from off-site abutting Residential or Estate uses by 50% of the tower height, or 75 feet for the requested tower. Alternative tower structures are defined in LDC Section 5.05.09.D. as manmade trees, clock towers, bell towers, steeples, light poles, and similar alternative mounting structures that accommodate, camouflage, minimize, or conceal the wireless communication facility equipment. The LDC Amendment also added an allowance for petitioners to request a deviation from the design and development standards applicable to towers as part of the Conditional Use request. Because of this, the Variance petition is no longer necessary and has been withdrawn. The petitioner requests two deviations: Deviation #1 requests relief from LDC Sec. 5.05.09.F.2.c. which requires a minimum tower separation of 150 feet from abutting Estates zoned property to the north to allow separation of 84 feet. Deviation #2 requests relief from LDC Section 5.05.09.F.2.g. which requires wireless communication facilities to be screened with a wall or fence to allow the communication tower not to be fenced. See page 11 of this report for discussion of the deviations. Separation from: Past LDC Minimum Separation per 5.05.09.G.7.b and c Current LDC Minimum Separation Per 5.05.09.F.2.c. Proposed Separation Property to North (Estates / residential) 150’ x 2.5 = 375’ 150’ x 1 = 150’ 84’ Property to East (Estates / residential) 150’ x 2.5 = 375’ 150’ x 1 = 150’ 445’ Property to West (Estates / residential) 150’ x 2.5 = 375’ 150’ x 1 = 150’ 449’ Property to South (Estates / residential) 150’ x 2.5 = 375’ 150’ x 1 = 150’ 239’ Page 59 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 4 of 14 December 10, 2024 Page 60 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 5 of 14 December 10, 2024 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the subject property, which is developed with an FP&L electric substation and zoned Estates (E): North: Single-family residential, zoned Estates (E) East: Single-family residential, zoned Estates (E) South: Single-family residential, zoned Estates (E) West: Single-family residential, zoned Estates (E) Page 61 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 6 of 14 December 10, 2024 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Rural Estates as identified in the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and on the Rural Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The current zoning is Estates (E). The stated intent is to install a 150’ monopole communication tower and related accessory equipment. According to the Sub-Element, a Conditional Use for a cellular tower is allowed in the Estates zoning district only on parcels no smaller than 2.25 acres and adjacent to a roadway classified within the Transportation Element as a Collector or Arterial. Based on available information, the lot appears to be approximately 5 acres and is located adjacent to Collier Boulevard, which is classified as a minor arterial roadway, allowing the Conditional Use process without an amendment to the GGAMP. Staff would also like to note that the existing ±4.99acre parcel is able to be split into two buildable lots, and should a lot split ever be considered in the future; the cell tower must be on property with frontage on Collier Boulevard so as not to create a non- conformity. Staff recommends as a condition of approval: The parent tract shall not be split or altered in any way that would render the tower location to become noncompliant with the Conditional Use Locational Criteria of the Rural Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the Growth Management Plan. This proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the GGAMP of the GMP. Transportation Element: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states: “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following 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.” Page 62 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 7 of 14 December 10, 2024 According to the information provided by the applicant, the proposed FP&L Summit Substation Communication Tower will generate a de minimis number of maintenance-related trips monthly based on similar facilities in Florida. Typically, a communication cell tower like this can expect approximately one trip per month, depending on the facility. Therefore, the subject's Conditional Use is found to be consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 4.99 acres with an existing FP&L substation and a 0.78- acre conservation easement within the property. Federal Law It should be noted that Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, codified at 47 USC 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), prohibits environmental concerns (or health concerns) as a reason for denial of cell towers by a local jurisdiction. If the CCPC recommends denial of the petition, it should not be based on health effects but rather on one of the five areas of analysis below for Conditional Use. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria on which a recommendation must be based. This evaluation is completed as part of the Conditional Use Findings provided below. In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the Conditional Use petition to address ecological concerns. The property has been developed with an FP&L electric substation. An existing conservation easement dedicated to Collier County for 0.78 acres has been recorded (OR 4257 PG 1833), which meets the preservation standards of LDC Section 3.05.07. The environmental data indicates a gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrow was observed onsite. Consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding guidelines and permitting requirements will be required before construction. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition request and recommends approval. Landscape Review: Buffers labeled on the Conceptual Site Plan are consistent with the LDC. Final fence/wall and landscaping plans are reviewed at the time of site development plan permitting. Mosquito Control District Review: Per LDC Section 5.05.09.I.3., the applicant must supply a copy of the application to the Collier Mosquito Control District or designee for towers greater than 150 feet in height. The request is for a tower that is 150 feet in height, not greater than 150 feet, so this requirement does not apply. Conditional Use Findings: Before any conditional use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must make findings that: 1) approval of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public; 2) all Page 63 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 8 of 14 December 10, 2024 specific requirements for the individual conditional use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: 1. Section 2.03.01 B.1.c.12 of the LDC permits communication towers as conditional uses, subject to LDC Section 5.05.09. The requested use for a wireless communication facility is allowed as a conditional use in the Estates zoning district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Sections 10. 08.00, Conditional Uses Procedures, and 5.05.09, Wireless Communication Facilities, of the LDC. 2. Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has found this request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The development of conditional uses shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code (LDC), with the exception that deviations can be requested from wireless communication facility design and development standards per LDC Section 5.05.09.F.4. Below is a review of applicable LDC standards and the two requested deviations. Height. The proposed tower is consistent with the maximum allowable tower height, which is dependent upon the number of providers accommodated on the tower per LDC Section 5.05.09.F.2.b. The tower is designed to support up to three providers (Verizon plus two others), which corresponds to a maximum height of 185 feet per the LDC. Lightning rods may exceed the height limitation provided the rods are no greater than 10 feet in length. The proposed height of 150 feet plus a 5-foot lightning rod conforms to the LDC. Separations. The proposed tower is not consistent with separation requirements from off-site abutting uses per LDC Section 5.05.09.F.2.c. The separation requirements are 100% of the tower height or 50% of the tower height if an alternative tower structure is proposed. Because the tower is proposed as a monopole design and not an alternative tower structure, the minimum separation requirement is 150 feet. The petitioner states that the communication tower will be constructed to the same standards as its electric transmission poles; the tower will be designed to withstand a Category 5 hurricane. Therefore, there is no engineered breakpoint, and no fall zone radius applies. This is indicated as Note 1. on Plan Sheet C1, Separation Plan. While the proposed separations from Estates zoned residentially occupied property conform to the minimum LDC requirement of 150 feet to the east, west, and south, the proposed separation to the northern Estates zoned residentially occupied property is 84 feet, which deviates from the LDC requirement of 150 feet. See page 11 of this staff report for discussion of proposed Deviations. Screening. Screening standards are enumerated in LDC Section 5.05.09.F.2.g. The petitioner seeks to deviate from the requirement for an 8-foot-tall wall or fence that is 100 percent opaque around the base of the tower. See page 11 of this staff report for discussion of Page 64 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 9 of 14 December 10, 2024 proposed Deviations. The overall height of ground-mounted equipment shall not exceed 12 feet. Dimensions of the equipment cabinets are reviewed against this standard at the time of the site development plan and building permitting. Landscaping. Landscaping standards are enumerated in LDC Section 5.05.09.F.2.h. Buffers labeled on the Conceptual Site Plan are consistent with the LDC. Final fence/wall and landscaping plans are reviewed at the time of site development plan permitting. Access and parking. Access and parking standards are enumerated in LDC Section 5.05.09.F.2.i. One parking space is required for towers that are 185 feet in height or less. Access to the tower is shown on the Conceptual Site Plan (Sheet Z2), which is to be provided off Weber Boulevard North via an existing driveway within a 20-foot-wide non-exclusive ingress and egress licensed area. An adequate area for one parking space appears to be available; final site design plans will be reviewed against these standards at the time of site development plan permitting. Estates. Additional standards apply to wireless communication facilities in the Estates Zoning District. These standards are found in LDC Section 5.05.09.H. and are evaluated below: a. The parcel is a minimum 2.25 acres and adjacent to an arterial or collector road. This criterion is met because the parcel is ±4.99 acres and is located adjacent to Collier Boulevard, which is classified as an arterial roadway. b. The wireless communication facility’s provider has provided evidence that the service provider's search radius for the tower location requires placement of the tower in the Estates Zoning District to meet its coverage requirements and that the wireless communication facility cannot be co-located on an existing tower and provide the same quality service coverage. Per LDC Section 5.05.09 D.4, the search radius area means the limited area certified by the provider’s Radio Frequency Engineer within which the proposed wireless communication facility needs to be located in order to resolve the provider’s coverage and/or capacity issues in the surrounding area. There is no standard numeric distance for a search radius; instead, the search radius for a particular site depends on many factors, including, but not limited to, the population to be served, geography, and topography. See Attachment B for the petitioner’s required “No Alternative Towers Affidavit.” See Attachment C, the Radio Frequency (RF) Justification Package, which includes an explanation for the need to place the tower in the Estates Zoning District to provide adequate service and address customer complaints due to coverage and capacity issues. The petitioner asserts that “The proposed site will significantly enhance the coverage and capacity need in the area and will bring significant network performance improvements to the existing and future residents of this area. There are no additional existing structures in the area that could support the installation of the Verizon Wireless equipment needed.” Page 65 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 10 of 14 December 10, 2024 Supplemental application requirements apply to wireless communication facilities in the Estates Zoning District. These requirements are found in LDC Section 5.05.09.I.1. and are evaluated below: a. Evidence from a Radio Frequency Engineer that the proposed facilities cannot be installed on another structure in Collier County and shall be located at the proposed site to meet coverage requirements with a composite propagation study illustrating, graphically, existing and proposed coverage in industry-accepted median received signal ranges. See Attachment B for the petitioner’s required “No Alternative Towers Affidavit” and Attachment C for the Radio Frequency (RF) Justification Package, which includes an explanation for the need to place the tower in the Estates Zoning District to provide adequate service and address customer complaints due to coverage and capacity issues. The RF Justification Package includes graphics illustrating existing and proposed coverage and asserts that “The proposed site will significantly enhance the coverage and capacity need in the area and will bring significant network performance improvements to the existing and future residents of this area. There are no additional existing structures in the area that could support the installation of the Verizon Wireless equipment needed.” b. If co-location is not available, the applicant shall submit an affidavit stating that the applicant made diligent efforts for permission to install or co-locate the WCF on all existing support structures located within the search radius for the proposed tower. The applicant shall establish in the application that they are unable to provide service at existing sites nearby, no other existing tower is available (including utility poles), and that no reasonable alternative technology can accommodate the WCF due to one or more of the following factors: (six factors are listed but not re-stated here for brevity) See Attachment B for the petitioner’s required “No Alternative Towers Affidavit,” which states, “A diligent review of the area within the search ring found that there are no existing communication towers and no buildings or structures tall enough to meet the antenna design of 145 feet above ground level.” Mosquito Control District. Because the proposed tower is not greater than 150 feet in height, the requirement that the applicant supply a copy of the application to the Collier Mosquito Control District or designee does not apply per LDC Section 5.05.09.I.3. 3. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Ingress and egress are shown on the Conceptual Site Plan (Sheet Z2) to be provided off Weber Boulevard North via a gated asphalt paved drive within a 20-foot wide non-exclusive ingress and egress licensed area. At the perimeter of the 15-foot x 30-foot equipment compound, a 12-foot-wide access gate is proposed for security. Page 66 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 11 of 14 December 10, 2024 The petitioner states that the use will generate approximately one maintenance visit per month, or 12 anticipated trips per year, by site technicians. 4. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. The communication tower is an unmanned facility and is not anticipated to generate noise, odor, or glare. No signals, lighting, or illumination is permitted on towers unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority. Site lighting cannot be more than 20 feet above grade and must be fully shielded and directed downward away from neighboring properties. The tower is not proposed to be illuminated. The tower is anticipated to improve wireless communication capacity and service levels in the area, which not only positively affects economic opportunities but also increases safety within the area with improved coverage and call stability for emergency situations. 5. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. The tower is within the boundaries of the parent parcel, occupied by an FP&L electric substation and a conservation easement along the south and east sides of the property (OR Book 4257, Page 1833). A tower will generate far fewer trips than other uses that are permitted or conditional in the Estates zoning district. Minimum separation distances are established in the LDC to address compatibility with abutting uses in proximity to a proposed tower. Towers in the Estates Zoning District must be separated from the property line of abutting uses by at least 100% of the tower height unless an alternative tower structure is proposed, whereby the separation distances shall be reduced to 50% of the tower height. The petitioner is proposing a 150-foot-tall monopole tower and not an “alternative tower structure.” The minimum required separation distance of 150 feet from abutting property lines is met with the exception of the 84-foot separation proposed from the abutting property to the north. DEVIATION DISCUSSION The allowance for deviations through the Conditional Use process is a new provision introduced through the LDC Amendment related to wireless communication facilities approved by Ordinance 2024-05 on February 27, 2024. LDC Section 5.05.09.F.4. states that an applicant requesting a Conditional Use may request a deviation from the design and development standards of [Section 5.05.09.F] as part of the Conditional Use request. Criteria for the deviation will be the criteria set forth in LDC section 10.08.00.D. The criteria set forth in LDC Section 10.08.00.D. are the findings that are the basis for the Planning Commission’s recommendation for conditional uses. These findings include the criterion that the request is consistent with the LDC. Deviations, by definition, are a departure from consistency with LDC standards. Therefore, this criterion cannot be met when applied to the review of deviations. For this reason, the staff analysis/recommendation includes additional consideration also given to the County’s standard deviation review criteria found in LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3., “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community.” LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Page 67 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 12 of 14 December 10, 2024 The petitioner seeks two deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from the petitioner’s “Deviation and Justification Statement” provided as Attachment D. The staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation # 1: (Separation requirement) Relief from LDC Section 5.05.09.F.2.c. which requires the tower to be separated from abutting Estates zoned property to the north a minimum of 150 feet to allow separation of 84 feet. Petitioner’s Justification: See Attachment D for petitioner’s explanation addressing conditional use findings criteria of LDC Section 10.08.00.D. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL based on the explanations provided by the petitioner that the site has unique constraints limiting the tower placement to the proposed location and that the tower is designed to standards that preclude it from falling, 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 petitioner’s justification for the reduced separation is based on constraints unique to FP&L substations. The site is constructed as an FP&L substation with required stormwater facilities and conservation areas. Limiting site design constraints result in the proposed tower location, including FP&L’s critical 100-foot setback from the substation building and existing stormwater facilities and conservation areas on the site. Per the Separation Plan (Sheet C1), there is no applicable fall zone radius per the tower design. The petitioner states that the communication tower will be constructed to the same standards as FP&L’s electric transmission poles; the tower will be designed to withstand a Category 5 hurricane; therefore, there is no engineered breakpoint, and no fall zone radius applies. Proposed Deviation # 2: (Screening) Relief from LDC Section 5.05.09.F.2.g, which requires wireless communication facilities to be screened with a wall or fence to ensure that no unauthorized persons can access the facility and to allow the communication tower not to be fenced. Petitioner’s Justification: See Attachment D for petitioner’s explanation addressing conditional use findings criteria of LDC Section 10.08.00.D. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL, finding the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” The equipment compound is proposed to be fenced per the LDC requirement; however, the monopole itself is not. The petitioner indicates that FP&L will construct, own, and maintain the tower; technicians will access the antennas on the structure using a crane and basket; and FP&L Page 68 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 13 of 14 December 10, 2024 does not permit fences to be constructed around poles because such fences are considered to be potential climbing aids. Staff notes that the proposed fence surrounding the equipment compound is roughly 6 feet from the tower. Therefore, it would be feasible to fence around the tower with an offset of roughly 6 feet. The petitioner states that the substation property is already a secure compound, so providing an additional fence around the communication tower will not provide additional protection from unauthorized access to the communication tower. Staff notes the survey and site plans show fencing around the substation facility and does not show fencing around the perimeter of the 4.99-acre parcel, so the level of security that exists for the tower is not evident. The petitioner states that the existing, mature tree canopy screens neighboring properties from the tower. Staff notes that a tower extending 150 feet in height can be seen despite the presence of trees in the vicinity of the tower; it is not clear how the trees control for unauthorized access to the structure to the extent that a fence would provide such control. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The NIM was held on April 16, 2024, at Max A. Hasse Jr. Community Park, located at 3390 Golden Gate Boulevard West. Approximately 11 members of the public attended. Virtual attendance was also available via ZOOM. The meeting commenced at 6:10 p.m. and ended at approximately 6:50 p.m. The petitioner’s agent, James Johnston, presented information about the proposed wireless communication facility and the justification for the Conditional Use. Comments from attendees included support for the improved cellular service in the area and opposition due to health concerns. See Attachment F for the documentation of the NIM. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on November 20, 2024. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) recommend approval of Petition CU-PL20230004008, FPL Summit Tower, to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), subject to the following conditions: Page 69 of 702 CU-PL20230004408 FPL SUMMIT TOWER CONDITIONAL USE Page 14 of 14 December 10, 2024 1. The telecommunications tower is on a +/-4.99-acre parent tract, which conforms to Conditional Use Locational Criteria of the Rural Estates Sub Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the Growth Management Plan because the parcel is no smaller than 2.25 acres and is adjacent to Collier Boulevard, which is classified as an arterial. The parent tract shall not be split or altered in any way that would render the tower location to become non-compliant with the Conditional Use Locational Criteria of the Rural Estates Sub Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the Growth Management Plan. 2. Deviation #2 is denied. An 8-foot-tall wall or fence that is 100 percent opaque is required around the base of the tower per LDC Section 5.05.09.F.2.g. Attachments: A. Draft Resolution B. Petitioner’s No Alternative Towers Affidavit C. RF Justification Package D. Petitioner’s Deviation and Justification Statement E. Application/Backup documents F. NIM Documentation Page 70 of 702 RESOLUTION NO.2025 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A lso-FOOT-TALL MONOPOLE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER THAT DEVIATES FROM THE REQUIRED 150- FOOT SEPARATION FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY PROVIDING AN 84-FOOT SEPARATION FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND THAT DEVIATES FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO SCREf,N THE TOWER FACILITY WITH A WALL OR FENCE TO ALLOW NO WALL OR FENCE AROIIND THE TOWER ON LANDS ZONED ESTATES (E) AND DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL ESTATES SUBDISTRICT WITHIN THE RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2.03.01.B.1.c.12 AND s.05.09 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 613+ SQUARE FEET OF A 4.99+ ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT I9I WEBER BOULEVARD NORTH, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20230004408) WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a comprehensiv e zontng ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the county, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability ofa Conditional Use to allow a l50-foot-tall monopole communications tower that deviates from the required 150- foot separation from residential property by providing an 84-foot separation from residential property to the north and that deviates from the requirement to screen the tower facility with a wall or fence to allow no wall or fence around the tower on lands zoned Estates (E) within the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element and Residential Estates Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element olthe Collier County Growth Management Plan pursuant to Sections 2.03.01.b.1.c.12 and 5.05.09 of the collier county Land Development code on the property hereinafter described, and the collier county planning commission has made findings that the fzt-crs-oztlt t tsoztstt t)st FPL Summit Communication Tower cu-pl2023000.1.108 \/t9tz\24 Page I of 2 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 61-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and cAoPage 71 of 702 granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific requirements goveming the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made conceming all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance w'ith Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this BZA in a public meeting assembled and the BZA having considered all matters presented. NOW, THERI,FORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number PL20230004408 filed by James Johnston, Esq. of Shutts & Bowen. LLP, with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby approved for a Conditional Use to allow a 150-foot-tall monopole communications tower that deviates from the required 150-foot separation from residential property by providing an 84-foot separation from residential properfy to the north and that deviates from the requirement to screen the tower facility with a wall or fence to allow no wall or fence around the tower on lands zoned Estates (E) within the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element and Residential Estates Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan pursuant to Sections 2.03.01.b.1.c.12 and 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code, in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit "B", and subject to the conditions and deviations in Exhibit "C". Exhibits *A", "B", and "C" are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals. This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super-majority vote, this day of 202s. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK By: , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Derek D. Perry Assistant County Attomey [zt -cYs-oztt t rooz+ettr]tt FPL Summit Communication Tower cu-PL20230004408 t t /19t2024 By: Burt L. Saunders. Chairman Attachments Exhibit "A" - Legal Description Exhibit "B" - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conditions/Deviations --to Page 2 of 2 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA Page 72 of 702 EXHIBIT "A" Page I of2 qo PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS PARB{T PARCEL (omctAl- RECoRD EOO|( 5796, PAGE 672) IRACT {. OF GOI,ET GAIE ESTA]ES, UN]T NO. J, ACCORDING TO IHE PI.AT.IHEREOF, AS RECORO@ IN PI.AT 8OOl( 1, PAOE 77 ^ND 78, OF lHE PUEUC R€CORDS OF COII.ER COIJNTY, TLOf,OA. UCANSE PARCEL (PREPARED BY GEoUNE STJRVEIINC, lNC.) IHAT PART OF lR^C?.+, GOTDB{ GAIE ESTAI€S, UNIT NO. 3. AS PB PTAT 1HEREOF RECOROED IN PL^T BOOI( ', PAGE 77 OF ]HE PUBIrc Rf,CORDS OF couJER couNTY, rl-oRoa. gruAIED lN SECIION 2, TOllNS| {P 49 SOrJlH, RANGE 26 EAST tr SAIO COIJJER COUNTY. BENG MORE PAR'IICUIJSLY o€SCRIBED ,\S FoIOIYS: couMENcE AT A roUND {' x /t' cot{cRElE MottuME{T (NG|DOITIRCAI|0.{) AT 1}€ NIERSECIIO{ OF IHE SOUIH T'.IE OF ]RACT .+, GOI..OO{ GAIE ESTAIES, UI.IT NO. 3, AS PER PTAT IHEREOF RECffiOED IN PI-AT BOO( ., PAGE 77 OFl}E PUBIIC RECOf,OS Of COU.M COUNTY. FI-ORIDA, UlH IHE f,ESI ROAD RIGI{T-OF-WAY EASA/ENT UNE OF UEER BOULRTaRD }|ORIH (60 FEEr 0E PUzuC ROAD roGHT-tr-W Y E SOTilD AS PB DESCRIPI|Oa{ RECORDED tN OFRqAL RECORD BOOI( 169. PAGE I3O OF SAID PUBUC RECORDS, SAID POINT BSNG NORIH E9'4O.50. IIEST, A OISTANCE Of 3O.OO FEET FROT I€ SOUIHEAST CoRI.ER OF SNo 1RACT,t; IIIENCE NoRIH 0O19'1O" EAST ALONG SAIO IGST ROAD RIGHT-tr-lv Y EASBTENf U E FOR 221.75 FEEI; IIGNCE NoRIH 69',10'50' trEsT FoR 3E8.66 FET TO lHE PqNT 0F BEqNNING; 'tHENcE NORIII 89',+0'50' lrEsT FoR 15.00 FEET: IHE}ICE NOR]H 00'19'10' EAST fOR 30.0o FEEI; ll{ENcE sot IH Eg',lo'so' EAST fOR 15.00 FEEI; IHE}iCE SOIJIH OO191O' $EST FOfi 3O.OO FET TO SAD POINT OF EEGINNING. coNTAtMNG +50 SoUARE FEET (0.0rO ACRES), IORE OR LESS. 20 FOOT WIOE NON-ACLUSIE INGRESS AND EGRESS UCRIS€E (PRFARED By GEOLtl,rE 9JRIE}ING, lNC.) lH^T PART OF 1RACT ,+. COLDEN GAIE ESTATES, UNIT NO. J, AS PER P!^T I}IEREOF RECOROED IN PLAT BOOI( 1, P^GE 77 OF 'tI{E PUBIIC RECORDS OFcotxER colrNIY. FLO&oA, STAIED tN SEC'nON 2, Toirr.tg{p ,t9 soulH. R^NGE 26 E^ST CF SAD COI.IJER COUNTY, LYTNG V{II{N 10 FEET Of BO1H SID€S OF A CA{IBUNE BSNG MORE PARIICUIARLY DESCRIBEO AS FOIJ.OTYS: cor/MB{cE Ar A ForrND ,+' x {' co{cREilE MoNUME{I (NG-tDefiHCAllON) Ar E TIIERSECI}ON OF IHE SOU|H I.JI.IE OF IRACT 4, GqbO{ GAIE ESTA]ES.UUT NO. 3, AS PER PI.AT IHEREOF RCCORDED IN PLAT BOO( I, PAGE 7' dFlltE puBuc REcoRos 0f couIER couNw, tLoRtDA, t(l?l lltE ,lEsr nolo mGHT-oF-w Y EASA{B{T UNE 0F u,EBm BoUtEvARD NoRIH (60 FEI t{DE PUBIJC RoAD RTGHT-oF-WAY EASATEND AS pER DESC'RtpltO{ RECORDED tNOFr|OAT RECORO BOO( 169, PAGE If,O i:F SAO PUEUC RECORD', SADIONT BENG NORIH 89'IO'5O' SEST, ^ OISTANCE Of 3O.OO FEET FRO II{EsoulHEASl coRNEa of SA0 InACT 4; lltE{CE NoRllJ oo19'10" EAST ALor{GS^IO VIEST ROAD roG1IT-OF-WAY EASE}IENT 1INE FOR 22.I.23 FEEr; IiIENCf, NORIII 69"t0'5O' IIEST FOR 5S8.66 FEET TO lflE SOUI}IEAST CORNER OF AN L5 FqoT x 50 FoOT UCENSEE PARCET; llEI{€ NoRII{ oo1g'to' gesf tonc !1E. EAST IJNE 0f SAto LtC€NCfr PARCEL FOR 17.75 FEEI IO rt.la tonior- BEGNNING OF I}€ CEN1ERUNE OF IHE HEREN D€SCRIBED 20 FOOT WIDE NON-E(CLUS\€ INGRESS ANO ECRESS UCENSE I}IENCE SOUIH 89'IO'50' EasT FoR JE.EO FEEI llfNCE NORIH 7s16'5s' EAST FOR 95.20 FET:IIEIQ toulH 76'19'56' EAST FoR E2.0o FEI; IHE}icE so{IH Ee.{o'so. Easr_ FgE 178.00 FEET T0 AN INIERSECI|Oil sttH sato resr foeoRIGHT-OF-IYAY EASANB{T LNE ANO I}€ PONI Or TEAMXUS Or *E IggIHDCSCRIBED CENIERU}€. coNTANtNG 7,906 SQUARE FEET (0.181 ACRES), MORE OR IESS. Page 73 of 702 pRopERTy DESCR|PI|ONS (CONINUED) 5 FOOT ITIDE NON-ryCLUSIE UTITJTY UCE}ISEE (PRPAREO 8y G€ouNE gJRvEyrNG, tNC.) IHAT PART Of IRACT ,I, GOT.OB{ GAIE EsTA.IES. UNIT NO. J, AS PER PlrT I}BEOF RECORD@ IN PLAT BOOI( 1, PAC*.77 OF I}E PUEUC RECOROS OT COTIIER COUNTY, TLORIOA, SNJAIED IN SECIIOI{ 2, TOVTNS'P 49 SOUIH, RANGE 26 EAST Of SAID COII.ER COUNTY, L]ING ITI1HIN 2.5 FEET OF EOIH SDES OF A CEI.,IIERUNE BEING UORE PARIIC1JLARLY OESCRIS@ AS FOTIOI!'S couMEI'rcE AT A FoTJND 4' X +' CONCREIE MONUMENT (NO-|DOrIACAI0N) AT IHE INIERSECIION OF IHE SOUII{ UNE OF IFAC?,t, GOTDRI GAI€ ESTAIES, UNIT NO. 5. AS PER PLAT]HEREOf RECOROED IN PLAT BOOX 1, PAGE.7l 6 II{E PUBUC RECORDS OF COII.B COUNTY. FLORIDA. Y{IH TC ITEST RO^D R|G+IT-0F-!YAY EASSTE{T UNE 0F *EBER BOU|EVARD NOR'IH (60 FET *tD€ PUSUC ROAD RIG+II-OF-YVAY EASanBrn AS PER DESCRIPIIO.I RECORDED &.1 OfRqAL RECORD BOO( 169, PAGE 13O OF SAIO PUzuC RECOROS, SAD PqNT BENG NORI1I 89.,+O'5O. VIEST, A USTANCE OF 3O.OO TET FRO IXE SOIJIHEAST CORNER 0f SND TRACT 4; IHENCE NoR'tH 0019't0' EAST ,COllc sAl0 ltEsf RoAo RlctlT-oF-IYAY EASEyENT LJNE FoR 22{.73 FEEI; l}E{C€ NoRIH E9'40'50' I!,EST FOR 388.56 FEEI To IHE SOU]HEAST CORIE 0F AN 15 FOOT X 50 FOOT I,'C8{SEE PARCEI.: 1HENCE NORIH OO19..IO, E^ST ALOIIG IT€ EAST IJNE OF SAD IJCENSIE PARCE- FOR JO.OO FEEI TO IHE NORIHEAST CORNER OF SAl0 IICRISEE PARcEli IHRICE NG]H 69'40'50' ttESI Al-Ol.lc lHE NORIH I.JNE OF SA,ID IJCENSfF PARCEL FOR 12.50 FEET lD }IE POINT OF BEGINNING OF I}C Ca.IIERUNE OT l}lE HEREN OESCRIB@ 5 FOOT WDE NOI.I-EXCLU9\E UIIUTY UCAIS€E IHENCE NORIH OO'19'IO' EAST FOR 6I.22 FEET; IHRICE NORIH 89'55'21'EASI fOR 87.81 FEETi IHEICE SOU]H 77!0'12' EAST FOR 100.00 FEEI; fi8tcE Soul}l 5E55'52' EAST FOR {l.oo FEEI; ltEtcE soulH ss.3l'l2' EAsf FoR l78.oo FET To AN lNlERsEClloNIIIIH A I..I}€ IHAT 6 PARALIIL V{IH ANO OFFSET 2.5 FEEI !iEST OF SAID I,ICS? ROAD RIGHT-OF-IV^Y EASEYAIT |JNE fiA{CE NORIH OO19'IO' E^ST T,LOI.IG SAD PARAII.EL UNE FOR 58.00 FEET TO AN INIERSEC|IOI.I W]H IHE NORIH T.NE OF SAID IRACT iI ANO IHE PqNT IERMINUS or lHE HEREN oEscRt8€o cSllERuNE colrTAlNNG 2,620 SOUARI FEET (0.060 ACRES). MORE OR IESS. l0 FOOT V'10€ NOl.l-ExCU,Sl\G UIIIJTY ITCENSEE (PREPARED BY GEOI}IE SJR\EYNG. INC.) IHAT PART OF TRACT /I, GOI.O8.I GA.IE ESTAIES, UNIT NO. 3. AS PER PLATIIGEOF RECOROED IN PLAT BOO( 1, PAGI.77 OF I}E PUBI.JC RECORDS OFcollJER corJNTy, Fto DA" SiJAIED tN SECIION 2, Torn$tp {9 Sorrlll, RANGE 26 EAST OF SAIO CTTITR COIJNTY, LTNC rrt]HIN 5.0 FET OF BOIH SDES OF A CEN|ERIJNE BENG MORE PARIICULARLY DESCRIBD AS FOTIOT{S: CCI/YEiICE AT A FO{-,ND 4' x +' CONCREIE MoNUHENf (NGIOE{IIACATIOT!) ATIHE NIBSECIION Of IHE SOU1H UNE OF IRACT 4, GOIbE{ GAIE ESTAIES, UNIT NO. 3, AS PER PIJT IHEREtr RECORDED tN pLAf BooX ,t, PAGE 77 (FIIf PUBI,IC RECOROS Of COII.ER COUNTY, FLORTDA, V{!H T'f iEST ROAD RIG|.T-OF-IVAY EASEMENT UNE OF *EBER BOI,,I.EV^RO NORIH (60 FEEr IUD€ PUBUC ROAD RtGfiT-OF-yrAy EASEITENT) AS pER OESCRTPIIO RECORD€DOMOAL RECORD BOOfi 169, PAGE I3O i)f SAID PUBIIC RECORDS, SAD POINT BENG NORIH 89'4O'5O' EI, A DISTANCE OF 3O.OO rEET MOU TI1E So{J'IHE!SJ CmNER OF SAID TRACT +; IHENCE NORIH 00.19'10. EAST A_ONG SAID IEST RoAD RlOl?-oF-wAY EASATENT UNE FoR 22,t.z3 FEEI; ItG,rE NORIH 89'{O'5O' IIEST FOR 3E8.66 FET rO IHE SOUI}GAST CORTCR Of AN Ll,foo-tl 50 FooT LlcB{sEE PARcEL: tHg.lcE NoRH Be'.to'so' $EsT AoNGITf SOU]H I.JNE OF SAIO UCENSE P^RCEL FOR T5.OO FEEr TO IHE SOU]HIIEST CORNER OF S^ID UCB.|SEE PARc'r. IHD.ICE NoRIH oo19'1o. EASTATONG lHE 'TGST UNE OF SAIO UCENS'T PARCAL FOR 17,75 iTEi TO II{EPONT OF 8€gNt{NG OF]HE CENIERUNE OF IHE HEREN D€SCR'BED IO FOOT $iD€ NqI:EICLUS\E UIIUTY UCE'ISEE; fHt].lCE NOR1H E9.{O'So" IIEST FOR16.50 FEEI I}IE PON' ]ERMINUS OF 1IIE }EEN D€SCRI8ED CE.']BUNE.' - coNTAtllNG l6J SAUAFE FEEI (O.0o{ AcREs), MoRE oR LESS. oao Page 2 of 2 Page 74 of 702 EI >!3!iu!Ig.i!Ii!i!TL'IJ zz---d\,2oE E1}E;3EEE j!II6??E-cIc I IIIIIIIIIIIII+'a7EI!E99E- i= , il-rrr,E a^irlElllg ;iE;EEEiEE; ?PJE EE! !EEE EqrEi tiiltii r --@--+- [+L_ i E E EI8a!i,EiBEoi!:EEILIII2zqi ;, iEI ii! rEI IIE i*E "ri I' i$ EE;Cezii IIig !is;i!Er ooc 85IIatE!EToI sF!u Egi b E:EU6<od ! E p 6! a : I I Eliliil ffll Iitu III Iff Iiff !' IIi*r riE-rl,v. tsr E ffir tao r I t (ofl :DYJ Ifl )*bS O50r ru)(r,olgsfl rw-j-rF. o@ .rEv s .0.) b Ili#$ii*lfiiiliuI 6 a l-:EirEEitr. I t FI ;c E -58t!'. JEF !s! {rEqdt e:i b EF!u ts9+ t 9=x E 8-.'dao( E" 8sn lg! r:! Ed g5;Eici*cBb"r5I!r,irIrtilgnia EF!uh'I p9+3 E=EE6{od _-+(i)r* lUo?z)<aE9Eklit8poFIJ e,Eq e ir q F g{ Pe IE E$..-" rE E Ji! il llii IEEEgE Z--*- h I I g bt a L Li Er{:, t!/ Er-I I I I { ( I I I I I I I ) r bd 6 ?U a ) I t c I! :, I I l t.) l -) L -) I h' + f -i( c I i T t t li 6! E I a q i E I 6 s d: H 6 p i : i:EE;itiEu"t!!:-E!gIEI F il;i 6l!dE I i I i i'i '-"-.\-"- 't I I I I IL ( I I Ir-J I I I 35 PE -0tB6 OF3u * E:i:I! r5E'dt tg Ee !r ,"EJi llL,) ffiILIIIIIII(wI i i-ro L IF :::iii3! 3d trh'i gi rrii I: EE lqEIEEff e E = H nI E E 6 Nmcl_tovoa'0Nq6 -l----r l_ E EEE 918 ErrQQ !ialrii{i"EE E6E EY!.ii lE*r 6E!E EE5il :E!! ilil,lt' iEd F t E i3 B6!i llI ll ll ll ll u5 E6EEI I !'e '! o Yo Page 75 of 702 I FI ;IIIlniI!l!tIiliL! r-,z:z-oit:G !Eel-Ei,U?H IIIEr6I ) etg8 ) 6 cc o a co o c e ::iar EsEjE. F ) { h\ r..r!\An ;g B EII i I !(hL 8J ..1 ft m r.(6t :x(lElAri-i-t ml.iPlrrr)Hlllc oaY^ftm€ EEy!EIf;f,III9aE'siFE9 E Er6ifi E aY 8! 3 - aJ.oo-fr SF bri. E9rb6ixE E f ;6-6aod It p E sE!{:". iEF Er;Y6t iEErd! ez7 b IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I sE!I.i!r -ItI:;l3lr _;u r4 I sU E9.bD=trE 6.8 6<oa, lUoez)<aE9*tg<<E)aHPoF h !v EJ :r 8; -\' ! h -l ?: N E 1 I l Er.aa t :r*i;! 1.1 85 iEq .t TT I E T HEFq"Et;E3bFa 6 d ) i UB rI ia frt 6E a )(tl|,itx/ iQi tollLr it* i€ii .l- !' i_r_ii -( It\ I I I I I Itl ll Itt) I I I I I I I I I I I I) : ! s ^ tEa 6aE8 a:.t !!s? 'J BB;EIErrlir! iEEE{6i EII::AE ErEE!;i I r.ri 99) tt rmrffiarYr-c4!dqr.ol,!@i ( I I ) Euil'il I I )//// aE- i*,;ii;i!Efuirii PP;EEEEPPEEEEEEPPrrEiifffiii#ilir tt^- i in.. t ":: EFsB P9jh u=xE 636 d<od t3 ooe (- A IEH d!!: { iiq =;1.r';ig E:T IUliURIIl{hBEI !r !r i! {u 6I EE aI 6 BIE!E6 a x $ bH !q ! z t :"6i.i!Ibrp6 rlrti EE]'l ,tlIB? ts.' I Hri t3i-i JI ,,F co \\ o ( ll ll ll lt ;t ll ll ll ll {r llll I I ll lt T6 cd Z--*-IIII!lrl EI Page 76 of 702 ):Iii*ilittin>z--17,s=,.)IIailoi,z=iI 1i,=v{!!EEiE:dHnoF IIII IIIIIItIIIIlIIIIIII IzItlL-llIIIIb t .t 5 t reol, Es si it Er IEEE E:B! !;lF !Et- a6 E 6 ecgs r.EEt --gvEtt;6 -l I a !!4E sts E9+!r6rxj a5E' 6< 85 i6's8p' I I I I I I I I I I E*qi :rpd tb -/_ i T i i i:l i i I i i T T i :lil i i i i I I i i i ii I i Z---*-(.Or!g. ;E cE!; dE lar elEI {ESc Esli t5* E 3i il'i; TiiTTiIjTjiTi T ! ET tE ff,ifuIfuff ;i p5 a8 lr o H9"'*\e,)Iir,li thrH55i=6!B {*0it!idEEEI'\IIIIIr'trtrtrt I I I I I I _l ItI ,r Page 77 of 702 ;;Ie!t:3:riItriti Ilr!tIl!t !E>EL,)6Xtr{lErP iIIIt[toilz)< (r)E91t2#)t4oxmtoF :,,it!sEEdrI:EIIcped6E J:,gg!t:ige tt.lI tItIZ---*- ril# iiEi il#lEiiE IIi ii;iiiil lll! il E, i, i, ;iiii, iiilr li#iigii iift isIiii,ff i;ii iii ii triiiilri! Fffffiffiffiffiirffiffiffii ssffi rffi ffffiifrffiffii o Q2z-\zo!!.J ca,-=JIIiIItI, ,,,t:t,li Page 78 of 702 : r.Ir o \ q) q $U U F Xri qo Page 79 of 702 EF IIIIIjIIFFu.l[!IaCIulooil*Ifiil6Ez e P e6a6-6 E6 :3!]€i;5ii!l6ie::i!;91o (uE=5 ^xEH!F@E -R.qQd! 9.;i;E; I:E.=zF Et6d-'u --)uoi,Ni:oEt>8 III!IIIIIII { I I I I I I I l I I I ! I I I I II t!tI I I 1 I i I It t t i, o o 29EA3Eilgt!-Pii,pES:ad:oiEtrkF=ooz(,z=zsaloo zotrtoTLzFd.LIJo- I--a fx Yl <tr d ?bH37 ?q3+$ d qsAe ;r; c':3 =-S49F t-z f- l zoo , =o uJl^ I iizlz. in: =tf0 33 YlsfiEit hP33$itrl<Lri:9 ElE l ='H , LliS=dk r9 zl= ! -.ufl:i; EIX: F trli:3 tlq6ro-iik ; 5 ,rr-35d d6*3< ><ot=tSket E;se= et! o t! tr.Jo aF O zoO gf o! L6 gE i?B PIxkou ;SPtr(Y o =ooo a= aliz FII I E u.l Bof- ! Po !Jo- E<E E} 2ltol> ok .,: dE<llo F E =f,a Foul ot o- L oE oE oE I IE 5Is I!s qtr adI,L1lozf-LIJLIJ-d z7 :- .\l xz^-onl 5aiiLricoQ;:2(,:& .O,18 P ; :: ftIH'sbs; gHSEHlR -<oiig9zoEie;<z;JO'J aaL!doo I,IJFa @o\rsooo:coYN tr- z 3R!+ o SdDI = ro ij+t.r 6 Oz.J - o F-= r.- (r i^ (o r (-,t); e d ci tllP d E -Dzi F H s?# I< = ur 9<XH d = "Ht!X J " uJ jo- o- N r $LL?=o Eozo O coNILo E959c=*l :sE:iiEE €;:ie:66 9Hsa;!EE :;F6agE:iF;iliF! r*=Eiei"' Ei;:E5i; i:d=px-s3;t=:i:i9t;E;er2I:3lEiE!i i5!g:!!ia.45:'{<;: !eeF!Esla:i6Ee9i*6 E;E:g;il!: iBE;i :$I3E Ee6Ir d6B+1 +:9EE i:lE:<,i"81 HgEEs EEE;E azotr C) IJJt o-(,z to 5 94s ,96 F dFIa o I 2 I B aa QE*H PtYE o Fzo d F tr utFa o- = Ez Ot oFz Page 80 of 702 :tIl:II iii:, (,7.z-J-o!4ft,-:)PE;>;ECEtr!r.:9trt iltiI5E I IIF _rr3 c !.f,r lrP:r_...or " Erc j ,.l rn(r -.-rr!e.rr$ --(I I I I I I E It_ 3 aE. lE - , E ilirEiii! ;i!:EEEiEi; PP;E PE E PPEE P qtEg ititSti I _ _ !a*E __+_ t\E ,EEEEE .H l:3! il rliiE..r!66J 72r, EgEI!E H; ET!T er IEIE .:EEi IIL_,1.. r ,|.r! ir(/ioc--- - -III i!islL.- lt^..-cffrl E79lE118-1' E!EbEEE-lII dtps iui 6"3 - tEi fiH'iii- lE EBr!?1 I EE E lrp p! T ITI rt I I TIfEI8dags,ssEEt8{flE "(lrrEEIEEE{E.PtaE!tlde!!L_It$6 i ; c iIEg83EIiIiiI IIII Iff III Iff, iIiI E' II d i h!I (6r rvJ 0rff@anE@) .lVW3 'tlllc:l:E elii 6bEEIE!!! Hlhri EriEIiil I T ! -ra*H:!!!'r.#H!er_ E,gEIa66,.!{!8;t!cEuaIiiiiliiliIiIIII8s E 8 ht h i5..dirBtag3g .6tt:" Erl {:fr!dvila EFsu h1f -llgr - ;ix E 6<od Ia{ 8sp Ig! BEI E{ r a t t.!!a!:s!E;did5I nF h"I H9{: ;;x r TI r+ld4!s ;g16*;:.I;lliirta',fiuloiz)<ai9<t2#AHmtoFcI_l ; E I E F E 6 Ei ll ll ll 1t ll I ll ll Ba!8qt c 1B 6 I Et IE b: E! ".*"!l irii t! riri EIEEEEr !EI) I r Z 6 I EB t 0 t_ :-l.. -l-l ItIIIII Et ( I I I I I I )+--r 18 ffi :1 '..-----_ E!. iEE5t #h ;ItIitEItit.I EEIEi!r-t :r ; B ! q I ! b E ,t p n 6 I i i j i 1 A //-/ t' ._._. \ {_._ .\ t I I I IL Ilr E1L-' -) L tsF3u EEI;;E 6T aesi\ le )ET -/ i\-.-..' ( I I I -) ill d lEr< ar. ::6! F IIE ; oEl E -!Ix HN !i ,';'1 Itit:lr 'J I 'oN cvou ,l.lNmcr96 ! o rl!,1ttildt ^l8.3t F I I -.rt- IF rl xt il-: ;: I:ii ;r :: iii:iE IEE*IiE ! !i !! 8il H6 3b ",.Ei A6 z f'-" !Page 81 of 702 I_t_j ,L.t@ r iiiiizz-.-(J.J-oi'nA,-:_)Q:-cEEb30.!ErPli I ) * -EEE cc o ! c e i;r 883d, EEat ca &! ilq E\ E\ I I ! E II E _[n-E!(crtd'drEelru) Y((!.16., rvr-i-]J0 @ ffi n,o.)HItt N OtV ftma lElsnI'E{sit! 3!tf,HlEtrect i.r h i EIrtrEE8O.o.-r- EF E9.u 9!rE6-o 6aod v 3 nbit! TE F E <E8t:i 3EE :t ;:Eqd! eld a If"IIIIIIIIIIIII I fiBl.!8ccll*q#Pdau SFin E:X. E9+h;:fE 6>6 6< lIJotz)<aE91t2#dgmtoF Ergr It E; -\HA .!l rlll Qr : il; Slr ! I is 85 iEq h 3 -l ;d v ! ! 5 ! Eq;9-1E5Eq6Eg ! l. !g E6 ) ) I I I I 1-- I I I I I Irillltl) -iI; biE pl f;E !E b I I I I I I I----l r^l 13i --,1I x I I I I I I I I I I ) .- I 3 t- I I -\ ;E- tErE IlE: <8,; teEeleiiilEiil ;i5!E!:;aprpEEE! ElilE!;i lli FrI I i 99LJ ) II r -'- ( I ) il'll tec5 T i-E'8IZ--*-BE.P i*-,El i: ig!IiEEIi!iIiIEi PP;EEPEEPEEPEEE!ilEIiiEifiEilili tt^- i in.. t":: EF!u p9.s 6ixE 6< pE Bh ooc (- ,5 iE! 8!E* q ili c Eilir:8[ E"rdE b Er si it E; .Elrbtp6:sll{f,EEgE 6 5 t! Ib *Htir59uB 2y EE b E I EtErEi t a d: H q t a I :ot4.,t6hp ;a-x i rl Ieis!l"l ,tltb?8at HEi-tt I:'i-i 7E I eo o.{ ,iI ll ll 1lI ll (i ll ll ll lt {( I -l -----: P! R a::Il: tL -l I ll ll JI I I ) .{ E c i liul=*Huiit5a Page 82 of 702 n2Z*,.io!l! ca.-'-)iii ItIi itllJot'z):<s)!-E9stqx t:i!2#Ei,J/|lr-8pEoF :IcIIIIIIIIIIIIIllLJI h'3 I I Z---*- ilr; ri ri- r :. i3 E,TEEE!i itulEiE* ii 2EEiEE EPOE EqqtrErrrEtE EiI ^.n ,,.. i!.i:l.l!i ztE' r"4 ad 6(TTIjTTIiTTTIi i I I T i i !l,I i i T i I i T i ;l i I i I T i i i I ri I i Otl8Edt A Ets IEiqr' slE<cu 8l* b d{ 6 ;e N Er 9c i! 2<tr q SEfi! Eei9 !!IE IEI- I ---;----- a- 85 1ag Eu - 1. ;q !E ). IE EO E E-, !; i8 It EF! r,,rE:i* E9ib6ExJ E.E tt<od EEEi LEEE iErsa9rfr p /_----l__ ov3 "irE\l$8.,ixEiiih[r IEII'iLIIIIIIII \IIIIIi+h*8lc?6H6IIIIIIiII 't, ). TA e, l IiI I T zXi-Page 83 of 702 IIi IiPE 3:lIIIII!l!i!t'n)'2.-.- (-,oina,-)e!E--Ed>\EFre63XtrTEtr=rlq IIIIlIJoez=<oE9<t2#AHmtoF EI7.EqIril0ts4PdEa ,I I15:8rt1g.HLP:t,:tr ll.7I!iE!"ild-x oc !H!: iirEEi,EeEt iiiiilrlililri! i Esr. ^IuEtiiiiE:siiEg+E:qig ?!sE ii$EHHIi!6EE !iieiiEII;;li :EiiE;!eii;Es,isligi rII#illiilffiliillll rrs ffi ffiffimffirrffi I lr ffi ffiff* I ';ffi sffiffigffffiffiffi1 OVC aI.l,iIIIit,IIl,ti !Page 84 of 702 EeoEFzool-a zee=a-6a-:a 66 a =q{I niIIIIriNu.lt{r_u.l ;l'1i xAUJuldo-tl&iEtiriis l;!R' 6loAo,:tslz7-F-6*SAB 'o;9Hi3:EH='H:ig.,i;ttr.8itig!rEo.NLo iIttfIIiII! i I I I I I I I I : I I : I, I : It I I It tII f I I I I i I It , t I , ot, iz Lii (-) F c0Ix tJl l.J.l 0a uJ u UJ U) tlJt 0- , fr*E !6E :" II 'Eg3 6q-E:U lc6 !N OYoU llxrb eiY Et9 A E5 PAEi*[-EEETE:I6i:;"iail>z<=, i:I: g; E SiftEEs8F?9EIEEisi)?e - 62 a .cE. 2>^i B cP!trtstrn 5J6EfE> EE:68;H e$ie:H:iSEeie; SdIexli .iF Er;: E:EEEA? alra?s's P::PE5E ptiEEi3ari I cY <g 7 z { E l g I 5 oz o Lll o x(hIEt x 9tEHEE e$3e3E9q ;-U .-; *Es 6tsg.E r8?E 3A8B 6-qe fqo; ;=F li & 9 s9 it eh ut =2AE': 915 - ', Elgx {Page 85 of 702 EeI?o U o otr z EIIIItIll tt I I It t I!t I I II : , I i I I, u.lFU)-))tF1o.;-uJ*ozooP5=a a E :s.itEiEg;aspr t-!E:g !Lo c,E\z7-,6EE eiEi38*;1i- ts E E'.rE;=re:-!lJ6\I5,;{!iEo.NLo IIIIIgitIIt i i I I I I I I I I l I I t I t tI or- O a,tz ui O ;8 FeBs{ FeEai -p -: o EzAE z iH-EE i-^"E F9B"egg:E; lc=.'H E":l;'E+E^6 EE=6 c Slip ?-e g :135:F c A,IEE ?P; zIo- tlJF Lt)) lF o_ I.JJ zoO |9C O (rYOt,tlNtE - .EqE B.EPd66E U TEU E?ih3s5e H-1:'FS: E dEa e:*eI;r s.s:ltuH:R8EE3--eh-tEo.',r iEsep ri g*-El4 6-. > P), rLl, s =e.'-- e a +i P< tB S- It ;3E3a3E!E g uxflE3"'P"; : iE;sHrrr E:EE qEE*d ai" i ' > I e5 zF <9 08 ? IzN O ]a lBq ,s{E<siEcEr6H 9 9 9I2cEEEaz=EeLu -uJ6o<tr6PEUJd<sft69aSEx9;oul=od.6 , a38 E l9 B2Y A E5 t i = Ht: R{e a 33ic3E9q 9- E ,qE E .i@L ilE =c F$EI ;trE; teo; E'5 0,00l0l,\ cNllslxS ul- 5tE elE 5tE I I E I = E = E I E =I 5I E P i 5 I--T--ETJ;I tltitiI l,)nli"t"t.t"l-NN ry!-!"*-, ,-t-Page 86 of 702 o_-loonFzoe Oz5o-zotrto-I.JJaEtl EiaIIirj !I I I I I I II lt f t tI i lIalc1s e: [;it a:3""'yt!;; EEo (u:=.IEE i:r;;H; I:E-L E [dE;=,P:IT;ai!!{AIp'troN'tro !III,IIItIII I i i I I I I II I I I IIt I ! I ! I I tI t! Q -9{i?66 E IulzEt6o<d6PFUJd<do-;s9;,ooUJ=oEg 6 iiI ll 'ii o ;d :zz-"iF8d6t PeEa i !-,P-Bo E69'.i.'- 9 E ?-^aE 6g?o^ gEiB: lr?IH r.o:l;SEE..@FS<H fridl3 de =5:HlEe 5e...Olz Zi - :IR5 =P E a'lE5?F 5 zI(! zo F- t o_LIa )(-I ;I*qE6 tsp3 :EE i ,al.l r686Eil:? g ^'=P B:6g53e' .iiYz 2 6 I 5 l ,ils I l, L___ iicBE>qiso!>dN";e"4erged E"r 6 zS IqSEeExe:3E!EERSEE 22 I E .0-,oz+ tl i 4i Efq (\II \ l t- I I ( ) I I ( \ .J Il;ltl;l;l}+++r)) .EF3 E-E H* q 8sUv: afE lp t) l5 f,' I ,j + "I t c EO-t!q5 :St i"E ggE zr6 9;: E f;'g E;r8x1lr EEE's 95iie FEC EdscPi 6 )o-q=- a'B>t5 6Bg9 129, z zT-T];T5T;ET;T;T-]I I l2t*t*tx etetet[lflElflElflEHffi s<B gEE .6! ilEEd ( = lli rlx li L Page 87 of 702 IE+oFF5oz IIIIiIIZEz I l I I tt tI!I ! t i : I I iI It t I 2 t!FaO-U3do-szITJ .tleilIElEie, -"ie"ttEo (u:E\z7-E4E::I!i r'l H "rr;=:E:!;It,i;I!!ltroNLo IIIIIiIIIII f I i t I I I I I i I I I I I I o I'!q b 'i! (J zIII uJFao tlJoE 1z l.1l E i 1. .0-.02+ Efe^ !i e.r.! ij; P t!rlP Ai!B.I?RtrEIE9P EE EO 6S I=i9sg9H9 .9 ,L R3EI'66= E6 e, ^/\ _l_ ,0t _) E- geg^ -<o-H"fEPR'E8FE z-u .0 'Eq3 :Pi.*qY o6o H3sP> 2 L E:P EEE axdI +.,. PPEE. 9*EEElgvi H-EP E61 9L-E;33 F'sH7! EE 9ds ^o? 3=t 0r I llt Iil[!t llu[lir lllll[!!ilulltl II ti II ltI l! II ,fl1 iltIl nt[[ llllill ruiitriilt!tl T-T-ET;T6TiT;ET;']I I ti 8tst;te Ptetl_r1ElEtaEEt-t]lllslslSl9lSlalEl| | la lalala lg lPlElI I tstalaiatEt t"lili1N-rElgtl| | lelsl3lel:lel3l No)l: o ,YU Page 88 of 702 e EiiIIItlt(_) t 2! I ! I I I I I i I I, i t{ UJ(,<az)o<6iLll a\Fa*rl 5 E e Paa5i<.39rIE,r l;:-t'EoA(u=v.EBE;eEi;E; I;d- tr E E",,5;E;P;Ed"6;"59ig8ra'co.NLo IIII{IiIIII i I I I I t { I I ,t I l I II I ! I I I It o c-,' o oF Foz L! () oFF z azoFOLLOt.r.Jo- U) oz azoa) (-) o- F 3ul zI o_ Fz uJ I,IJ O J o-zo U) e t zo zIF tr t--2(, Ll.ld oo c I:E: I I E6 -r,gx 4L 56 B5 aa9,6I i: e ; .x 3teIEti I 9i_tt=93 2 3 aoi9.=( x69l&got Izld I 6 s 6 t I $ g q T I zqQLIJE uJt zo NE lrJ 6 z(, o1 uJdF oz e P .IIEi36 2 E! tI.JJOtroz LIJoF-ozaI(IIIIIIItIItItt!ErItI3.Iti!IIIttlIIIIuJotroz I zoFl o I I ! r I I i I t,tiITtaIlr "tglllIii Izo F =x.o LLz -li'E tt a"J I I I *E t, $v c" llE F et I z 2tr B I9 I aIlr.it iii za^a2ta LU ccF ouJF,illzlolrld.l,-il9lFI9ldI9l l.'lluzl 9l ,,t oal)lol 5l<told 61url -.,1 ol rldl ril 1lzl g o '_-l 1--r6 @ i III ollJFlaa)(lUJ OQF(J<lro; >d) ;Page 89 of 702 EP a!IIIII!B6I I I t I ! II II tI!I II i I I I I t I i zooza<+(,<fiJZ)<EHEezF:EiE!t 15.!;E;oA(uEvSEB-..sqE:5i5) 4:4 i cdou!: ; fi '.663iE r16;.r,!l!itroN'=o 1ttI,iIIIII i I i I I I I i 1 I : I I I I I , t I uJ () oFFoz zo = ulJ LlJ tr uJ =oF IJJ-Jo o_ozo 9d- pi) p8+ Eg*E EBAE 3 6l'i E *E g j EB -65 iH Ie EE9P E.=E 9y HA E> L l:! t-{ <E EF 1 ql Lt t{lJll< s le r' 6. "z)it ..,1 3l .: :t >{ ,i I 9f ;R I g: ? ! op oFIE I: IElEIFl3 9l5lrl!a alEiHl;-t- t6 t tFolo ol Islsl*lslssts >t;ti"t-t-1.1.lllBlsFI;Ifi O 1 I I Page 90 of 702 EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL INoneJ DEVIATIONS Deviation #1 - Relieffrom LDC section 5.05.09.F.2.c, which requires the tower to be separated from abutting Estates zoned property to the north a minimum of 150, to instead allow an 84-foot separation. Deviation #2 - Relief from LDC section 5.05.09.F.2.g, which requires wireless communication facilities to be screen with a wall or fence to ensure that no unauthorized persons can access the facilities, to instead allow the communications tower not to be fenced. Page I of 1 CAOPage 91 of 702 ACFrOgBx8M6rlLAS_FChgOS7MJwURd2iVg8JbVXKRIRS... https://doc-Og-bc-apps-viewer.googleusercontent.com/viewer/sec... verizon July 30, 2024 Collier County Planning and Development Services 1660 Ringling Blvd., 1st Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 RE: FPL Summit Substation - Collocation Affidavit To Whom It May Concern: Verizon Wireless Network Design (“Verizon Wireless”) issued a search ring for a new site within the area of Collier County, Florida, south of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard West. A diligent review of the area within the search ring found that there are no existing communication towers and no buildings or structures tall enough to meet the antenna design of 145 feet above ground level. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Its: Associate Director - Verizon Wireless Real Estate / Regulatory Date: 7/30/2024 STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF Palm Beach Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by means of [X] physical presence or [ ] online notarization this 30th day of July, 2024, by Jhonathan Montenegro, [X] who is personally known or [ ] has produced as identification. [Notary Seal] I MARK BAESCH I Notary Public • State of Florida - Commission # HH 520700 My Comm. Expires Apr 27, 2028 I Bonded through National Notary Assn. Print Name: Mark Baesch Notary Public, State of: Florida My Commission Number: HH 520700 My Commission Expires: April 27th, 2028 1 of 1 7/30/2024, 1:27 PM Page 92 of 702 RF Justification Package FPL Summit Substation Prepared by Verizon Wireless RF Engineering William Compton September, 2024 Page 93 of 702 Capacity is the need for more wireless resources.Cell sites have a limited amount of resources to handle voice calls,data connections,and data volume.When these limits are reached,user experience quickly degrades.This could mean customers may no longer be able to make/receive calls nor be able to browse the internet.It could also mean that webpages will be very slow to download. Coverage is the need to expand wireless service into an area that either has no service or bad service. The request for service often comes from customers or emergency personnel. Expansion of service could mean improving the signal levels in a large apartment complex or new residential community. It could also mean providing new service along a newly built highway. Introduction: There are two main drivers that prompt the need for a new cell site.One is coverage and the other is capacity. Page 94 of 702 Capacity is the amount of resources a cell site has to handle customer demand. We utilize sophisticated programs that use current usage trends to forecast future capacity needs. Since it takes an average of (1-3) years to complete a cell site project, we have to start the acquisition process several years in advance to ensure the new cell site is in place before the existing cell site hits capacity limits. Location, Location, Location. A capacity cell site needs to be as close as possible to the center of the user population and network demand as that ensures a more even traffic distribution around the cell. A typical cell site is configured in a circular pie shape, with each slice (aka. sector) holding 33% of the total cell site resources. Optimal performance is achieved when traffic is evenly distributed across the 3 sectors. A new site placed too close to an existing cell site generates unwanted interference to existing customers and does not offload far away traffic and is therefore an ineffective capacity offload solution. Page 95 of 702 Need Case for: FPL SUBSTATION The existing network in eastern Collier County south of the intersection of Collier Blvd. and Golden Gate Blvd. W has coverage and resulting capacity issues. The proposed site will be surrounded by single family residential buildout on large wooded lots which are very difficult to provide adequate service. This area generates significant numbers of customer complaints due to coverage and capacity issues. The proposed site will significantly enhance the coverage and capacity need in the area and will bring significant network performance improvements to the existing and future residents of this area. There are no additional existing structures in the area that could support the installation of the Verizon Wireless equipment needed . Page 96 of 702 LTE Current Coverage Proposed Site Page 97 of 702 LTE Proposed Coverage Proposed Site Page 98 of 702 Neighbor Sites with VzW Installations and Distance G F E C BA H D3.1miles 2.6miles 1.8miles 4.1miles 3.4miles 3.1miles 3.7miles 3.5miles 2.2miles I Page 99 of 702 First Tier Neighbors and Proposed Site Information Map Label Latitude Longitude FCC ASR FCC Structure Owner Structure Type VzW Centerline (ft)VzW Site Name A 26.272146°-81.725683°Crown Castle Monopole 162 N Naples Fire Station B 26.270231°-81.691585°Crown Castle Monopole 190 Randall Relo C 26.257853°-81.689604°Crown Castle Monopole 135 AT&T CR 951 D 26.254447°-81.625161°1022178 Crown Castle Lattice 140 Crown Rock Road E 26.228389°-81.632175°1208812 Golden Gate Fire Control Lattice 143 Baker F 26.200486°-81.689624°SBA Monopine 135 Unity Faith G 26.181613°-81.694378°1293475 American Towers Guyed 154 Tasha H 26.209689°-81.740664°1272658 SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC Monopole 143 Seagate Baptist Church I 26.242771°-81.735891°1205615 SBA Towers II LLC Monopole 125 Vineyards Community Park Proposed Site 26.232311°-81.686814°TBD TBD Monopole 145 FPL Substation Page 100 of 702 Page 101 of 702 Page 102 of 702 Page 103 of 702 Page 104 of 702 TOWER PLACEMENT EXHIBIT Z1 SITE NAME: FPL SUMMIT SUBSTATION SITE No.: 5000046085 FUZE PROJECT #: 17003208 NORTH SCALE: N.T.S. TOWER PLACEMENT EXHIBIT 1 Z1 TOWER SEPARATION TABLE (FROM EDGE OF BASEPLATE TO PROPERTY LINE) Page 105 of 702 Page 106 of 702 Page 107 of 702 Page 108 of 702 Page 109 of 702 Page 110 of 702 Page 111 of 702 Page 112 of 702 Page 113 of 702 Page 114 of 702 Page 115 of 702 Page 116 of 702 Page 117 of 702 Page 118 of 702 Page 119 of 702 Page 120 of 702 Page 121 of 702 Page 122 of 702 Page 123 of 702 Page 124 of 702 Page 125 of 702 Page 126 of 702 Page 127 of 702 Page 128 of 702 Page 129 of 702 Page 130 of 702 Page 131 of 702 Page 132 of 702 Page 133 of 702 Page 134 of 702 Page 135 of 702 Page 136 of 702 Page 137 of 702 Page 138 of 702 Page 139 of 702 Page 140 of 702 Page 141 of 702 Page 142 of 702 Page 143 of 702 Page 144 of 702 Page 145 of 702 Page 146 of 702 Page 147 of 702 Page 148 of 702 Page 149 of 702 Page 150 of 702 Page 151 of 702 Page 152 of 702 Page 153 of 702 Page 154 of 702 Page 155 of 702 Page 156 of 702 Page 157 of 702 Page 158 of 702 Page 159 of 702 Page 160 of 702 Page 161 of 702 Page 162 of 702 Page 163 of 702 Page 164 of 702 Page 165 of 702 Page 166 of 702 Page 167 of 702 Page 168 of 702 Page 169 of 702 Page 170 of 702 Page 171 of 702 Page 172 of 702 Page 173 of 702 Page 174 of 702 Page 175 of 702 Page 176 of 702 Page 177 of 702 Page 178 of 702 Page 179 of 702 Page 180 of 702 Page 181 of 702 Page 182 of 702 Page 183 of 702 Page 184 of 702 Page 185 of 702 Page 186 of 702 Page 187 of 702 Page 188 of 702 Page 189 of 702 Page 190 of 702 Page 191 of 702 Page 192 of 702 Page 193 of 702 Page 194 of 702 Page 195 of 702 Page 196 of 702 Page 197 of 702 Page 198 of 702 Page 199 of 702 Page 200 of 702 Page 201 of 702 Page 202 of 702 Page 203 of 702 Page 204 of 702 Page 205 of 702 Page 206 of 702 Page 207 of 702 Page 208 of 702 Page 209 of 702 Page 210 of 702 Page 211 of 702 Page 212 of 702 Page 213 of 702 Page 214 of 702 Page 215 of 702 Page 216 of 702 Page 217 of 702 Page 218 of 702 Page 219 of 702 Page 220 of 702 Page 221 of 702 Page 222 of 702 Page 223 of 702 Page 224 of 702 Page 225 of 702 Page 226 of 702 Page 227 of 702 Page 228 of 702 Page 229 of 702 Page 230 of 702 Page 231 of 702 Page 232 of 702 Page 233 of 702 Page 234 of 702 Page 235 of 702 Page 236 of 702 Page 237 of 702 Page 238 of 702 Page 239 of 702 Page 240 of 702 Page 241 of 702 Page 242 of 702 Page 243 of 702 Page 244 of 702 Page 245 of 702 Page 246 of 702 Page 247 of 702 Page 248 of 702 Page 249 of 702 Page 250 of 702 Page 251 of 702 Page 252 of 702 Page 253 of 702 Page 254 of 702 Page 255 of 702 Page 256 of 702 Page 257 of 702 Page 258 of 702 Page 259 of 702 Page 260 of 702 Page 261 of 702 Page 262 of 702 Page 263 of 702 Page 264 of 702 Page 265 of 702 Page 266 of 702 Page 267 of 702 Page 268 of 702 Page 269 of 702 Page 270 of 702 Page 271 of 702 Page 272 of 702 Page 273 of 702 Page 274 of 702 Page 275 of 702 Page 276 of 702 Page 277 of 702 Page 278 of 702 Page 279 of 702 Page 280 of 702 Page 281 of 702 Page 282 of 702 Page 283 of 702 Page 284 of 702 Page 285 of 702 Page 286 of 702 Page 287 of 702 Page 288 of 702 Page 289 of 702 Page 290 of 702 Page 291 of 702 Page 292 of 702 Page 293 of 702 Page 294 of 702 Page 295 of 702 Page 296 of 702 Page 297 of 702 Page 298 of 702 Page 299 of 702 Page 300 of 702 Page 301 of 702 Page 302 of 702 Page 303 of 702 FP&L Summit Substation Communication Tower Neighborhood Information Meeting April 16, 2024 Page 304 of 702 Team •James Johnston with Shutts & Bowen •Mark Baesch with Verizon Wireless •Bill Compton, Verizon Wireless RF Engineer •Tim Young with Crown Castle on behalf of FP&L •Jacqueline Gwynn with Smartlink Page 305 of 702 Request •Conditional Use to permit installation of 150’ tall monopole communication tower on property with Estate future land use and zoning •Communication tower will be owned by FP&L with Verizon Wireless as anchor licensee •Located at 191 Weber Boulevard North on FP&L electric substation property Electric substation use to remain Page 306 of 702 Page 307 of 702 Page 308 of 702 Page 309 of 702 Communication Tower •150’ Monopole communication tower Monopole design has reduced visual impacts •Location abuts existing electric substation •Accessed from Weber Boulevard through existing substation entrance •Designed to accommodate two additional providers to prevent communication tower proliferation in the area •Set back from property lines -84’ to north, 239’ to south, 446’ to east, and 211’ to west •Designed by FP&L to meet transmission pole requirements, including wind loading Page 310 of 702 Page 311 of 702 Page 312 of 702 Page 313 of 702 Verizon •Existing coverage and capacity gap in the area Significant customer complaints •150’ tower height necessary to resolve coverage and capacity issues Closest towers range in height from 125’ to 190’ Height permitted by code •Closest existing tower is 1.8 miles away No existing towers or structures in search ring on which Verizon antennas can be located Antennas required in Estates zoning district to meet coverage and capacity needs •Site will significantly enhance coverage and capacity and result in major network performance improvements Page 314 of 702 Page 315 of 702 Page 316 of 702 Page 317 of 702 Communication Tower Benefits •Will improve coverage and capacity in the area •Good wireless service is important for public safety Over 80% of all 911 calls made from wireless devices Improves E911 •Sited on an existing electric substation site Fencing and mature tree canopy along perimeter provide buffering and screening •Unmanned facility so no impact to public services, including roads •Certified appraiser studies show proximity to towers does not impact property values Collier County Property Appraiser does not take proximity to communication towers into account in valuing property Page 318 of 702 Conditional Use Review Procedures •Application submitted and under review by Collier County staff •Neighborhood Information Meeting to inform neighborhood about application •Public hearings Planning Commission -makes recommendation to Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BCC) •Not yet scheduled •Board of Zoning Appeals (BCC) •Final decision on conditional use application •Not yet scheduled Page 319 of 702 Thank You Questions? Page 320 of 702 Page 321 of 702 Page 322 of 702 Page 323 of 702 12/19/2024 Item # 9.B ID# 2024-2055 PL20230008640 - East Trail Mixed Use (PUDZ) - Tamiami Trail E and Greenway Road -An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district, to allow a maximum of 300 dwelling units, of which 22 units shall be reserved for residents at or below 50% of the County’s area median income, and 9 units shall be reserved for residents at or below 80% of the County’s area median income located at ±441 feet west of the intersection of Tamiami Trail E and Greenway Road and is comprised of five parcels, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of ±24.41 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Sean Sammon, Planner III] (Companion Item to GMPA - PL20230008643) ATTACHMENTS: 1. PL20230008640 -PUD Rezone - Staff Report 2. Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 3. Attachment B - Backup Package 4. Attachment C - Legal Ad & Sign Posting 5. Attachment D - Updated Affidavits - 12.06.2024 Page 324 of 702 Page 1 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2024 SUBJECT: PL20230008640: EAST TRAIL MIXED-USE PROJECT PUDZ ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Kelvin Anderson, DJ Greenway LLC JD Greenway LLC 6868 High Meadows Dr Cincinnati, OH 45230 Agent(s): Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Rich Yovanovich, Esq. & Jeremie Chastain, AICP Coleman, Yovanovich, & Koester Hole Montes, a Bowman Co. 4001 Tamiami Trl N 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34103 Naples, FL 34110 Contract Purchaser: Investment Properties Corporation of Naples David Stevens & Robert Caroll 3838 Tamiami Trl N, Ste 402 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject site from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to allow a maximum of 300 dwelling units, of which up to 45 units shall be rented to households at or below 80% of the county’s area median income, and up to 45 units will be rented to households at or below 100 % of the county’s area median income, and up to 64,000 square feet of gross floor area of Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district uses. Page 325 of 702 Page 2 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject PUD, consisting of ±24.41 acres, is located at ±441 feet west of the intersection of Tamiami Trail E and Greenway Road and is comprised of five parcels in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map) Page 326 of 702 Page 3 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant requests to rezone the subject property from its current zoning designation of Agricultural into a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development to be consistent with the companion Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) to establish a new subdistrict. The rezone request is seeking to allow up to 300 multi-family dwelling units with a maximum of 64,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) of commercial uses of the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district. The subject property is comprised of 5 parcels consisting of a total of approximately ±24.41 acres and is located adjacent to and north of Tamiami Trail East, approximately ±441 feet west of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road. The parcels adjacent to Tamiami Trail East are undeveloped, whereas the remaining interior parcels to the project boundary are developed with single-family residential lots and various agricultural activities. According to the 2024 Collier County Coastal Flood Map, the subject property lies within the flood zone designation “AE,” which is a 100-year floodplain, with Base Flood Elevations determined, and has a high risk of flooding with a 1% chance of flooding each year. A small portion with the flood zone designation of X500 has a moderate to low risk of flooding and less than 0.2% chance of annual flooding. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Developed single-family residential, low density, with a zoning designation of Agricultural (A). East: Developed 7-Eleven, then Greenway Road (R.O.W.), and then a mix of vacant and developed single-family residential with a mixed zoning designation of Commercial Intermediate (C-3), Agricultural (A) within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay – Receiving Lands, respectively. South: Tamiami Trail East (R.O.W.) and then developed single-family residences with a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD) between the Fiddler’s Creek PUD, with a gross project density of 2.08 units per acre and the Charlee Estates PUD, with a total density of 4.37 units per acre. West: Vacant commercial and agricultural and developed Mobile Homes with a zoning designation of Commercial Convenience (C-2), Agricultural (A), and Mobile Homes (MH). Page 327 of 702 Page 4 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 Page 328 of 702 Page 5 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject ±24.41-acre site is located within the Urban Mixed-Use District, which is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments such as the proposed development. The project is also located within the boundaries of the US-41 East Corridor Overlay, specifically within the boundaries of an identified as a community center. Per the Future Land Use Amendment, Community Centers are proposed to include moderate to low- intensity mixed-use development, commercial, residential development, hotel/motel at a maximum density of 26 units per acre, and certain economic development uses. The proposed 300 units of multifamily residential development are justified by the commitment of 30% of the units to affordable housing. More specifically, fifteen percent (15%) of the units are to be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income (AMI), and fifteen percent (15%) of the units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the Area Median Income (AMI). While this commitment is inconsistent with the current affordable housing density bonus system, these commitments are consistent with the proposed update to the affordable housing density bonus program (PL20210001291), making it supportable by staff. The proposed GMP subdistrict also includes a maximum of 64,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) of Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district uses for which the applicant has provided a commercial needs analysis; said analysis provided justification of the proposed commercial area by analysis of the existing FLUE designation/overlay, projected traffic counts/drive times to employment centers, retail supply/demand, and an economic overview. Comprehensive Planning Staff believes that the petitioner has provided appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan Amendment. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s March 5, 2024, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a.For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b.For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and Page 329 of 702 Page 6 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 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 Findings: According to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) provided with this petition, the proposed development will generate a projected total of +/- 492 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent roadway segments of Tamiami Trail East (US-41). The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway link: Link/Roadway Link Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Trips (1) 2022 AUIR LOS/ Remaining Capacity 2023 AUIR LOS/ Remaining Capacity 35.0/Collier Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. to US-41 Tamiami Tr 3,200/North 32/North D/ 501 D/ 516 36.1/ Collier Boulevard US-41 Tamiami Tr to Wal-Mart Dr 2,500/North 2/North F/ (121)(2) F/ (32)(2) 94.0/US-41 Tamiami Trail East Triangle Blvd to Collier Blvd 3,000/East 44/East C/ 973 C/ 1,076 95.1/US-41 Tamiami Trail East Collier Blvd to Joseph Ln 3,100/East 140/East B/ 1,454 B/ 1,703 95.2/US-41 Tamiami Trail East Joseph Ln to Greenway Rd 2,000/East 168/East C/ 667 C/ 682 95.3/US-41 Tamiami Trail East Greenway Rd to San Marco Dr 1,075/East 32/East F/ (113)(2) B/ 728(3) • (1) Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is from the March 5, 2024, Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. • (2) Existing Deficiency due to Trip Bank. See State Statue bullet points below. • (3) Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) count data was used to count station locations and accuracy Florida Statute 163.3180  Must allow an applicant to enter into a binding agreement to pay or construct their proportionate fair share.  Facilities determined to be deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips plus projected background traffic from any source other than the development shall be removed from the proportionate share calculation.  The improvement necessary to correct this type of deficiency is the funding responsibility of the maintaining entity. Page 330 of 702 Page 7 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024  Applicant must receive a credit for the anticipated road impact fees.  The applicant calculated their proportionate share, and it does not exceed the impact fees anticipated to be collected. Based on the TIS, the 2022, and 2023 AUIR, and the State Statute, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 0.20 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 0.05 (25%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. FLUE CONCLUSION: Based on the above analysis, the petition may be deemed consistent IF the companion GMP amendment, PL20230008643, is adopted and becomes effective. The PUDZ Ordinance needs to contain an effective date linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA. GMP Conclusion: Comprehensive Planning staff found the GMPA request to be consistent with the proposed updated affordable housing density program and is sufficient for the data provided, analysis, and statutory requirements for the GMPA. Based on the submitted TIS, Transportation Review staff concurs that the adjacent road network is sufficient for the capacity of this project proposal within a 5-year planning period. Environmental Review determined the project proposal is consistent with the CCME and the preservation requirements. Staff is unanimous in a request for approval for the GMPA, which is a requirement for the approval of the PUD Rezone. 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 the Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13 B.5, Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Subsection, 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below under the heading “Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the PUD petition to address ecological concerns. The PUD Master Plan notes the preserve will be provided off-site pursuant to LDC 3.05.07.H.1.f. Two gopher tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus) burrows were observed onsite. A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) permit will be required prior to approval of the first Development Order. Additionally, data obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission indicates the presence of black bears in the area. A Page 331 of 702 Page 8 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 black bear management plan will also need to be included at PPL or SDP review; no other listed species were observed on the property. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as it did not meet the EAC's scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommend approval of the proposed petition. Transportation Review: The Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of the proposed East Trail Mixed Use Project PUDZ. Utility Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the South Collier Water Reclamation Facility wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Developer commitments are listed in “EXHIBIT F” of the MPUD document under the “PUBLIC UTILITIES” section. 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. Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management (EM) staff provided the following comment: Collier County Emergency Management at buildout expects approximately 40% of the total occupancy at two individuals per household, totaling 240 individuals that will require evacuation shelter. (300 units x 2iph=600 occupants). 600 x.40 taking public shelter refuge equals 240 evacuees. This number of evacuees will require additional shelter space to be utilized at local shelter sites, typically located in local public schools. This number of evacuees will require portable backup power resources not provided in local shelters for the temporary installation of ventilation, emergency lighting, refrigeration of medicine, communications, and electrically powered oxygen generators. The Emergency Management (EM) Division is requesting, as part of the developer’s agreement, to provide a one-time contribution of a minimum 45kw rental grade diesel towable generator to be provided Free On-Board (FOB), shipping/delivery is paid for by the purchaser or vendor. No freight/delivery/surcharges or any other fees are to be incurred by the County, which is in accordance with general specifications provided by EM at the time of the first certificate of occupancy. EM will provide general specifications and a list of vendors the developer may consider. EM approval of the unit is required before purchase. The generator is an open-market sourced item. The unit shall be delivered without charge to Collier County and titled to the County per staff instructions. Parks and Recreation Review: Parks and Recreation staff did not have any comments. Affordable Housing Review: The Housing & Human Services staff has provided the following comment: The Housing Policy & Economic Development Division staff has provided the following comments: The Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (and its accompanying GMPA Page 332 of 702 Page 9 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 Subdistrict) proposes to include 300 multifamily rental apartment units at a density of 12.29 units per acre, along with additional Commercial uses. The development proposes to include 30% of the residential units (90 units) as affordable housing, with 15% (45 units) restricted to households below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 15% (45 units) restricted to households below 100% AMI. For reference, the 2024 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits are: The developer also commits to priority marketing of the affordable units to Essential Services Personnel and Military Veterans. All the abovementioned restrictions and commitments will remain in effect for thirty (30) years. The need for affordable housing units is great in Collier County. The University of Florida Shimberg Center for Housing reports that there are currently 51,368 cost-burdened households in Collier County, with 25,687 of those spending more than 50% of their monthly income on housing expenses. The Shimberg Center also reports that the average observed rent for apartments in Collier County has risen sharply, doubling over the past ten years to now $3,234 (2024). Page 333 of 702 Page 10 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 Approval of this development will assist Collier County in addressing the continued need for affordable housing. Historic Preservation Review: The Historic Archeological Preservation Board, based on county GIS Historical Probability Maps, finds no Historical Structures, Districts, Historical/Archaeological Probability Areas, or Archaeological Sites on the subject property; therefore, staff recommends approval. Zoning Review: The subject property’s Commercial Tract along US-41 is adjacent to Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoned property to the east, which is currently a 7-Eleven gas station with a car wash. It is also adjacent to undeveloped Commercial Convenience (C-2) zoned property to the west. The proposed uses for the Commercial Tract are designated as C-3 zoned uses, such as restaurants, small-scale commercial uses, and possibly medical offices, but no other anchor use like a grocery store or gas station is included. The applicant originally proposed including a car wash; however, under staff’s discretion, as well as concerns during the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) from the public about two car washes adjacent to each other, the applicant removed the use. All permitted uses included for the commercial tract are compatible with the surrounding commercial zoned properties as well as with the multi- family residential property that will be adjacent north of the commercial tract. The residential tract will include a total of 300 multi-family residential units, which equates to a density of 12.29 dwelling units per gross acre. The accessory uses are inclusive of structures customarily associated with the permitted dwelling units, which include parking structures, gazebos, fountains, signages, gates & gatehouses. There will also be recreational uses such as swimming pools, fitness centers, and sports courts for residents and guests. The multi-family residential structures are adjacent to Agricultural zoned properties with developed single-family Page 334 of 702 Page 11 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 residences to the north and east and Mobile Home (MH) zoned properties with a mix of undeveloped and developed residences to the west. The development standards for the multi-family uses in the residential tract include: Minimum Floor Area 700 SF/DU Minimum Yards (From Tract Boundary) North – Side Yard 25 feet South – Side Yard 20 feet East adj to Ag – Side Yard 20 feet East adj to Greenway Rd – Front Yard 30 feet West – Rear Yard 20 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 50% of the sum of zoned heights, no less than 15 feet Maximum Height Zoned 45 feet, max of 3 stories Maximum Height Actual 52 feet The development standards compare to multi-family uses typically found in the RMF-12 base zoning district. Considering the setbacks, the proposed setbacks, especially for the side yards, are even more than what is permitted in the RMF-12 base zoning district. The actual maximum height of the structure will not create a nuisance or shading issue due to the buffering and landscaping that will be provided. The development standards for the commercial uses in the commercial tract include: Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF Minimum Lot width 100 feet Minimum Yards (From Tract Boundary) North – Rear Yard 10 feet South adj to US-41 – Front Yard 20 feet East adj to C-3 – Side Yard 10 feet West adj to Ag – Side Yard 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 50% of sum of zoned heights, no less than 15 feet Maximum Height Zoned 35 feet, max of 2 stories Maximum Height Actual 42 feet The development standards compare to commercial uses typically found in the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district. The building heights will be compatible with the multi-family residential development adjacent to the commercial tract, which is also typical of common commercial developments adjacent to US-41. The commercial development will not seriously affect reduce light and air to adjacent areas with the development standards coupled with the landscape buffers. Page 335 of 702 Page 12 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 Staff recommends approval due to the compatibility of the commercial and residential development with adjacent properties and the other proposed developments along Greenway Road. CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS: Concurrent land use applications under review are: PL20230008643: Companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) for Multi-family affordable and commercial. PL20240004357: Site Development Plan (SDP) - Proposed multi-family development consisting of 9 buildings (8 multi-family, 1 amenity) and multiple on-site retention areas. The site includes three parcels (00738960001, 00740080005, 00738920009) and is ±17.99 acres. 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 proposed rezone is compatible with the surrounding lands to the north, south, and west, designated as an Urban Mixed-Use District and urban Residential Subdistrict. Lands adjacent to the east, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Greenway Road and Tamiami Trail East, are designated as Urban Commercial Mixed-Use District, Greenway Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict. The remaining lands east across Greenway Road are within the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) and are designated Receiving Lands. Receiving Lands are those lands within the RFMUD that have been identified as being appropriate for development. There will be direct access to water, sewer, and other utilities, further establishing this site is well-suited for the addition of commercial and residential uses. According to Collier County Public Utilities, a water main is available along Greenway Road and Kathy Lane, and wastewater mains are available along Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road. There are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the proposed 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. Including this proposed project, in addition to a few other proposed projects along Greenway Road, an estimated 2,120 residential units will be developed with access from Greenway Road. Traffic may be an issue for public safety pending the Page 336 of 702 Page 13 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 submitted Signalization Plan, subject to FDOT approval, in Attachment B, Backup Package, for Greenway Road and Tamiami Trail East. 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. Evidence of unified control is provided with this application. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, policies, and Future Land Use Element of the [GMP]. The Future Land Use designation of the subject property is the Urban Residential Subdistrict. The purpose of the proposed GMP subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The proposed Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD will result in commercial and multi-family development in urban Collier County on a site that can connect to existing public facilities and is consistent with all applicable GMP Goals, Objectives, and Policies. 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 property is currently zoned Agricultural and abuts properties that allow for various residential and commercial uses, a 7-Eleven (within the Greenway Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict), Greenway Road, and Tamiami Trail East. The proposed uses are compatible with the existing zoning and land uses of the surrounding properties. The proposed PUD will provide for adequate screening and buffering from adjacent properties. Property development and setback standards will further ensure compatibility with adjacent uses. The land adjacent to Tamiami Trail East will be rezoned to Tract C, commercial, and will be compatible with the existing commercial 7-Eleven at the intersection of Greenway Road and Tamiami Trail East. The land adjacent to the northeast will be rezoned to Tract R, residential, and will be compatible with existing residential zoned Agricultural to the north, Mobile Home to the west, and Agricultural within the RFMUO-Receiving to the east. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The proposed Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD will provide adequate usable open space. The proposed open space that is provided meets the minimum open space requirement of 30% at approximately ±7.38 acres. Page 337 of 702 Page 14 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The developer will be responsible for the cost of any site-related improvements, including, but not limited to, access improvements and conveyance-related improvements to the water and/or sewer distribution system. There will be a requirement to demonstrate “concurrency” at the time of future subdivision plats or Site Development Plan(s) for this project. The concurrency process ensures that the County has the capacity for Category “A” public facilities and services at the time that project-related impacts will affect (require) such services and facilities. Category A public facilities are facilities that appear in the various elements of the Collier County GMP, including arterial and collector roads, surface water management systems, potable water systems, sanitary sewer systems, solid waste disposal facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. According to Collier County Public Utilities, a water main is available along Greenway Road and Kathy Lane, and wastewater mains are available along Tamiami Trail E and Greenway Road. There are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utility acceptance. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. There are no issues that would limit the ability of the subject property or the surrounding areas to accommodate this project. Currently, the land adjacent to Tamiami Trail East that will be rezoned to commercial is vacant. The land adjacent to the north that will be rezoned to residential has developed residences that will be demolished and cleared to develop the proposed project. According to Collier County Public Utilities, a water main is available along Greenway Road and Kathy Lane, and wastewater mains are available along Tamiami Trail E and Greenway Road. There are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utility acceptance. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD conforms to the LDC regulations or contains deviations therefrom, where appropriate, and are included further in this report. Page 338 of 702 Page 15 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 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, and policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the GMP. The proposed change is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and as applicable to the Growth Management Plan. The applicant provided a commercial needs analysis, which is consistent with the GMPA petition request. 2. The existing land use pattern. The proposed rezone is compatible with the existing land use pattern. Land adjacent to the north is zoned Agricultural consisting of developed single-family residential lots. Land adjacent to the south, across Tamiami Trail East, is zoned Planned Unit Development, known as Charlee Estates and Fiddler’s Creek, and consists of developed single-family residential lots. Land adjacent to the east is zoned Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) and is developed with a 7-Eleven; and then across Greenway Road, land is zoned Agricultural within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay, designated as Receiving lands and consists of developed single-family residential lots. Land adjacent to the west is zoned Commercial Convenience District (C-2), which is currently undeveloped, as well as land zoned Mobile Home District (MH), and is also currently a mix of developed and undeveloped mobile homes. Regarding the Future Land Use pattern as it currently exists, the lands to the north and west are designated Urban Mixed-Use District and Urban Residential Subdistrict. Land to the south is designated Urban Mixed-Use District and Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. Lastly, the land to the east is designated Agricultural/Rural within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay (A-RFMUO), designated as Receiving Lands. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. This rezoning will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The commercial tract, as shown on the Master Plan, is adjacent to other commercially zoned properties and Tamiami Trail East. There is a commercial development adjacent to the east, 7-Eleven, as well as a shopping center to the southeast within Fiddler’s Creek. The residential portion of the development is adjacent to lands zoned Agricultural and MH and mostly developed with residential uses. There will be access to the commercial tract from Tamiami Trail East and will interconnect to the residential tract. There are two potential interconnections from the 7-Eleven commercial property and the undeveloped Agricultural property. The other remaining access points will be from Greenway Road to the east. Page 339 of 702 Page 16 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Existing boundaries were not illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions in the neighborhood. The property is bounded by Tamiami Trail East to the south, Greenway Road to the east, developed properties to the north, and undeveloped land to the west, zoned MH and C-2. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. Changing conditions do not make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. However, changing conditions do make the proposed rezone desirable and appropriate. Market conditions at the present time make it feasible to allow for viable multi-family residential development that can support an affordable housing component. Additionally, the population in the area is expected to grow, and the commercial supply will need to be available to meet the demand in a proximate location. The location of the proposed commercial component is appropriate, as it is adjacent to existing commercial development and fronts on Tamiami Trail East. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed commercial uses are found throughout the County adjacent to and nearby residential development without issue. The development standards proposed, such as landscape buffers and setbacks, ensure compatibility with neighboring properties. It is more optimal to have commercial services closer to residential development in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled over longer distances. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The proposed change will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses or otherwise affect public safety. A TIS consistent with County methodology for the calculation of trip generation and traffic analysis has been included with this rezoning application. Based on the results illustrated within this traffic analysis, roadway segments impacted by the proposed development are currently operating at an acceptable level of service and will operate at an acceptable level of service in 2028 with or without project traffic. Furthermore, the developer shall pay the appropriate, applicable Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. Page 340 of 702 Page 17 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 According to Collier County Transportation Review, the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time and as outlined above, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 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 is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The site will be designed to meet all County and SFWMD requirements, and no drainage problems will be created. Collier County Engineering Stormwater reviewed and approved the application after it satisfied the review criteria. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Development standards and perimeter landscape buffers ensure that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed actual maximum height for the residential structures is 52 feet, which is similar to the RMF-12 zoning district. The proposed maximum zoned height for the commercial structures is 35 feet and not to exceed two stories, which is similar to commercial developments located in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts and is less than the maximum height allowed for commercial development in the C-3 zoning districts. There will be no expected light and air reduction to adjacent areas especially with enhanced landscape buffers and strategic distances between structures. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed change will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. If approved, the proposed change will likely increase the property values in the surrounding area by locating goods and services within a short distance and by providing an attractive, high-quality multi-family residential development. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Page 341 of 702 Page 18 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 The proposed change will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The standards and conditions within the proposed PUD are only applicable to lands inside the PUD boundary. The adjacent property owners will still have the ability to go through a similar zoning entitlement process. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The proposed change does not grant a special privilege to the owner in accordance with existing regulations because adjacent property owners can develop their properties as necessary under the regulations of the existing zoning district, or they have the option to go through a similar planning and zoning entitlement process. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. There are no substantial reasons why the subject property cannot be used in accordance with the existing Agricultural zoning. However, the Agricultural zoning does not result in the highest and best use of the property, which is commercial and residential. The existing zoning does not allow for the proposed commercial uses necessary to support the increasing population in the surrounding area or the proposed density, which will further meet and address the County’s housing needs. Furthermore, the proposed affordable housing units will contribute to the alleviation of the need for affordable housing units in the County. The site is within the Urban area, and there are sufficient public facilities to support the proposed density and intensity. In order to support the proposed project, the existing Agricultural zoning district is not sufficient. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Generally accepted planning principles state that providing a variety of goods and services, such as the uses of the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) the proposed rezoning permits, are generally in scale with the needs of the traveling public and nearby residential development. Locating commercial uses in such a manner aids in reducing vehicle miles driven and vehicle trips. The draft 2021 – 2025 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Human Community Development (Consolidated Plan) prepared for the Collier County Public Services Department, Community and Human Services division, identified housing affordability as “high priority level” need. The proposed subdistrict will help the County achieve the overarching goals of the Consolidated Plan “To provide decent housing by…increasing the availability of affordable housing” and “To provide a suitable living environment through safer, more livable neighborhoods, greater integration of low- and moderate-income residents throughout the County, [and] increased housing opportunities” (Consolidated Plan, pg. 112). Page 342 of 702 Page 19 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. It is not impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed uses already permitting such use. However, the proposed development is the highest and best use of this property as it is within urban Collier County, there are sufficient public facilities to serve the site, and the property is adjacent to residential and commercial development and nearby property with existing zoning that permits commercial development. Combining residential and commercial development adjacent to a main arterial like Tamiami Trail East and reducing the amount of vehicle miles traveled is a net benefit for the county. Therefore, the subject property is more suitable for the proposed use than other areas in the 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 physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification of Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) is typical of and not different from any other similar development in Collier County. There have been and continue to be MPUDs developed throughout the county. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended. There is availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to serve the proposed project. According to Collier County Public Utilities, the development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Aside from being consistent with the GMP and the FLUE, the subject property is being rezoned for the requested MPUD zoning district and plans to provide viable access for connectivity between the commercial properties adjacent to the south along US-41 and the adjacent developments along Greenway Road. This won’t Page 343 of 702 Page 20 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 negatively impact the surrounding uses, and staff concurs that the proposed uses and density are consistent with the neighborhood and the county. Lastly, as stated previously, an estimated 2,120 residential units are to be developed with access from Greenway Road. Traffic may be an issue for public safety pending the submitted Signalization Plan in Attachment B, Backup Package, for Greenway Road and Tamiami Trail East. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking 3 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 “Seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02- Buffer Requirements, Table 2.4, Footnote 3, which states that “Buffer areas between commercial out parcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared [Type A] buffer 15 feet wide with abutting property contributing 7.5 feet” to allow instead a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each property within the MPUD contributing 5 feet. Petitioner’s Justification: Tract C is adjacent to undeveloped, A zoned land to the east, Tract R to the north, commercial development to the east, and Tamiami Trail E to the south. The perimeter buffers will ensure the necessary screening and buffering of Tract C to the surrounding area. The reduced width landscape buffers will be internal to the project. A 5-foot width still provides sufficient space for attractive, appropriate landscaping and will not result in a negative impact to the surrounding area. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The landscape buffer width will be reduced 19 feet and each property’s contribution will be reduced 5 feet. The reductions will be internal to the PUD boundary, and the buffer type A will still provide sufficient screening for the nature of the project. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #2 “Seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 – Buffer Requirements, Table 2.4, which requires a 20-foot wide, Type D perimeter landscape buffer where the proposed multi- family development is adjacent to Cecil Road” to instead allow for a 15-foot-wide Type B perimeter landscape buffer. Petitioner’s Justification: Cecil Road is an unimproved dirt drive ±12 feet in width that provides access to one single-family home external to the site. Due to the low traffic, the proposed 15-foot Type B perimeter buffer will provide an attractive, appropriate landscape and sufficient buffering and screening for the proposed development and adjacent single-family homes. Page 344 of 702 Page 21 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The landscape buffer width will be reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet, and the buffer type will shift from Type D to Type B. Staff concurs with the applicant regarding the classification of Cecil Road and traffic volumes for the access road. The reduction to 15 feet Type B buffer will provide sufficient screening between the proposed multi-family development and the adjacent single-family homes in the A zoning district. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #3 “Seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04 – Parking Space Requirements, Table 17, which requires a total of 600 parking spaces for the proposed multi-family dwelling units and accessory amenity uses located within Tract R to instead allow for a parking rate of 1.6 spaces per 1-bedroom unit and 1.8 spaces per 2-to-3-bedroom units for the residential development within Tract R.” Petitioner’s Justification: Based on the Collier County LDC parking standards criterion for multi-family dwellings and accessory recreational uses, the parking requirement for the subject property is 600 parking spaces. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) specific parking land use codes for the multi-family dwellings and the Collier County LDC parking criteria for the accessory residential uses, the overall parking requirement for the proposed development is 511 parking spaces. Though more relevant, the ITE parking rates may be considered more generalized since the data covers a broader spectrum of projects across the country. Based on site-specific, local parking rates and consistent with the ITE Parking Generation Manual time of day distribution, the minimum number of parking spaces required for the proposed residential development is 516. A Parking Demand Study was prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. Based on the results of this analysis, the peak parking demands for the proposed individual uses occur at different times. The proposed development parking supply equates to 1.75 parking spaces per unit (525 total parking spaces) and provides an adequate parking supply with a factor of safety to satisfy the parking demand for the proposed development. The overall parking supply and demand includes recreational facilities serving the community. Such a comprehensive approach is subject to review and approval of an Administrative Parking Reduction (APR), as permitted by County code. Please see the Parking Demand Study for additional details. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff provided the applicant a review comment for this specific deviation to be conducted as an Administrative Parking Reduction (APR) review, subject to the LDC Sec. 4.05.04.F.4. Consequentially, a Parking Demand Study was completed by the applicant and is included in Attachment B, beginning on page 184. The applicant performed the minimum requirements necessary for an APR review. Based on the review, the subject property includes a parking requirement of 600 parking spaces. The applicant utilized the Page 345 of 702 Page 22 of 22 PUDZ-PL20230008640 Rev: 11/21/2024 ITE for parking land use codes for residential uses in a broad spectrum of projects throughout the country, and in combination with the Collier County LDC criteria for recreational uses, this requirement equals a total of 511 parking spaces. Sequentially, the applicant applied more local rates consistent with the ITE and determined the minimum required parking spaces to be 516 parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant will provide 525 parking spaces in total, 19 of which will be ADA accessible, and this equates to an overall reduction of 75 parking spaces or 12.5%, which is substantially less than the maximum 25% allowed for most APRs. Even with the proposed reduction, the applicant is still providing more parking spaces necessary than the ITE land use codes that are applied throughout the country and within the local jurisdiction. Further justification for the overall site parking reduction is applicable to the proximity to the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Bus Route #24, Government Center – Charlee Estates that circulates through Greenway Road and the possibility of including bike racks for the residences as an alternative mode of transportation. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on Monday, April 29, 2024, at 5:30 pm at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve at 300 Tower Road, Naples, Florida 34113. The PUD Rezone and the companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) were presented and discussed at the NIM. Five members of the public were present in total. Questions on building height, landscape buffer, and water and sewer impact were confirmed. Concerns were brought up about Traffic at US41 and Greenway, the proposed use of a carwash, the requested density of affordable housing, and the environmental impact, which were all addressed. An NIM summary begins on page 236 of Exhibit B. COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report on December 5, 2024. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-PL20230008640 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of Approval, subject to staff conditions of approval that have been incorporated within the PUD Ordinance. Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance B. Backup Package C. Legal Ad and Sign Posting D. Updated Affidavits of Authorization Page 346 of 702 [23-CPS-02417/1902882/1]97 Tamiami Trail - Greenway Road PL20230008640 11/7/24 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2024 -_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITH THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITHIN THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO BE KNOWN AS TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 300 MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20230008640] WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Senior Vice President of Hole Montes and Noel Davies, Esquire of Davies Duke, PLLC, representing Investment Properties Corp. of Naples, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District partly with the Airport Zoning Overlay, to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), partly with the Airport Zoning Overlay, for a 24.41± acre project to be Page 347 of 702 [23-CPS-02417/1902882/1]97 Tamiami Trail - Greenway Road PL20230008640 11/7/24 2 of 2 known as Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units and 64,000 square feet of gross floor area of Commercial Intermediate C-3 Zoning District uses, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. _________ becomes effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of ________________ 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 F. Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development and Design Standards Exhibit C: Master Concept Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Deviations Exhibit F: Development Commitments Page 348 of 702 Page 1 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx EXHIBIT A TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for the development of the MPUD shall be in accordance with the content 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 MPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. TRACT R (RESIDENTIAL) I. Principal Uses A. Multi-family rental dwelling units, not to exceed 300 total dwelling units (12.29 dwelling units per gross acre). II. Accessory Uses A. Accessory uses and structures customarily associate with the permitted principal uses and structures permitted by right in this MPUD, including, but not limited to: B. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents (and their guests) of Tract R, such as swimming pools, fitness centers, dining facilities, sports courts, and clubhouse/recreation buildings. C. Customary accessory uses and structures to multi-family units, including parking structures, gazebos, fountains, trellises, signage, entry gates and gatehouses, administrative offices, and similar structures. D. Temporary sales facilities may be permitted. TRACT C (COMMERCIAL): A maximum of 64,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) is allowed. I. Principal Uses A. The following uses are permitted. 1. Accounting (SIC 8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (SIC 7322). 3. Advertising agencies (SIC 7311). Page 349 of 702 Page 2 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx 4. Amusement and recreation services, indoor (SIC 7999 martial arts, yoga and gymnastics instruction, gymnastic schools, and recreation involving physical fitness exercise only). 5. Animal specialty services, except veterinary (SIC 0752, excluding outside kenneling). 6. Apparel and accessory stores (SIC 5611—5699). 7. Architectural services (SIC 8712). 8. Auditing (SIC 8721). 9. Auto and home supply stores (SIC 5531). 10. Automobile Parking, automobile parking garages and parking structures (SIC 7521 — shall not be construed to permit the activity of “tow-in parking lots”). 11. Automotive services (SIC 7549) except that this shall not be construed to permit the activity of "wrecker service (towing) automobiles, road and towing service." 12. Banks, credit unions and trusts (SIC 6011—6099). 13. Barber shops (SIC 7241, except for barber schools). 14. Beauty shops (SIC 7231, except for beauty schools). 15. Bookkeeping services (SIC 8721). 16. Business associations (SIC 8611). 17. Business consulting services (SIC 8748). 18. Business credit institutions (SIC 6153—6159). 19. Business services — miscellaneous (SIC 7389, except auctioneering service, automobile recovery, automobile repossession, batik work, bottle exchanges, bronzing, cloth cutting, contractors' disbursement, cosmetic kits, cotton inspection, cotton sampler, directories-telephone, drive-away automobile, exhibits-building, filling pressure containers, field warehousing, fire extinguisher, floats-decoration, folding and refolding, gas systems, bottle labeling, liquidation services, metal slitting and shearing, packaging and labeling, patrol of electric transmission or gas lines, pipeline or powerline inspection, press clipping service, recording studios, repossession service, rug binding, salvaging of damaged merchandise, scrap steel cutting and slitting, shrinking textiles, solvent recovery, sponging textiles, swimming pool cleaning, tape slitting, texture designers, textile folding, tobacco sheeting, window trimming, and yacht brokers). 20. Child day care services (SIC 8351). 21. Churches. 22. Civic, social and fraternal associations (SIC 8641). 23. Commercial art and graphic design (SIC 7336). 24. Commercial photography (SIC 7335). 25. Computer and computer software stores (SIC 5734). 26. Computer programming, data processing and other services (SIC 7371— 7379). 27. Credit reporting services (SIC 7323). 28. Direct mail advertising services (SIC 7331). Page 350 of 702 Page 3 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx 29. Drycleaning plants (SIC 7216, nonindustrial drycleaning only). 30. Drug stores (SIC 5912). 31. Eating places (SIC 5812 only). All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption are subject to locational requirements of LDC Section 5.05.01. 32. Educational plants and public schools subject to LDC Section 5.05.14. 33. Engineering services (SIC 8711). 34. Essential services, subject to LDC Section 2.01.03. 35. Federal and federally-sponsored credit agencies (SIC 6111). 36. Food stores (groups SIC 5411—5499). 37. Funeral services (SIC 7261, except crematories). 38. Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners (SIC 7212). 39. General merchandise stores (SIC 5331—5399). 40. Glass stores (SIC 5231). 41. Hardware stores (SIC 5251). 42. Health services, offices and clinics (SIC 8011—8049). 43. Home furniture and furnishings stores (SIC 5712—5719). 44. Home health care services (SIC 8082). 45. Household appliance stores (SIC 5722). 46. Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (SIC 6311—6399, SIC 6411). 47. Labor unions (SIC 8631). 48. Landscape architects, consulting and planning (SIC 0781). 49. Laundries and drycleaning, coin operated — self service (SIC 7215). 50. Laundries, family and commercial (SIC 7211). 51. Legal services (SIC 8111). 52. Libraries (SIC 8231). 53. Loan brokers (SIC 6163). 54. Management services (SIC 8741 and SIC 8742). 55. Membership organizations, miscellaneous (SIC 8699). 56. Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (SIC 6162). 57. Museums and art galleries (SIC 8412). 58. Musical instrument stores (SIC 5736). 59. Paint stores (SIC 5231). 60. Personal credit institutions (SIC 6141). 61. Personal services, miscellaneous (SIC 7299 - babysitting bureaus, clothing rental, costume rental, dating service, debt counseling, depilatory salons, diet workshops, dress suit rental, electrolysis, genealogical investigation service, and hair removal only). 62. Personnel supply services (SIC 7361 and SIC 7363). 63. Photocopying and duplicating services (SIC 7334). 64. Photofinishing laboratories (SIC 7384). 65. Photographic studios, portrait (SIC 7221). 66. Physical fitness facilities (SIC 7991; SIC 7911, except discotheques). 67. Political organizations (SIC 8651). 68. Professional membership organizations (SIC 8621). Page 351 of 702 Page 4 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx 69. Public administration (SIC groups 9111—9199, SIC 9229, SIC 9311, SIC 9411—9451, SIC 9511—9532, SIC 9611—9661). 70. Public relations services (SIC 8743). 71. Radio, television and consumer electronics stores (SIC 5731). 72. Radio, television and publishers advertising representatives (SIC 7313). 73. Real Estate (SIC 6531—6552). 74. Record and prerecorded tape stores (SIC 5735). 75. Religious organizations (SIC 8661). 76. Repair services - miscellaneous (SIC 7629—7631, SIC 7699 - bicycle repair, binocular repair, camera repair, key duplicating, lawnmower repair, leather goods repair, locksmith shop, picture framing, and pocketbook repair only). 77. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (SIC 5261). 78. Retail services - miscellaneous (SIC 5921—5963 except pawnshops and building materials, 5992-5999 except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths). 79. Secretarial and court reporting services (SIC 7338). 80. Security and commodity brokers, dealer, exchanges and services (SIC 6211—6289). 81. Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors (SIC 7251). 82. Social services, individual and family (SIC 8322 activity centers, elderly or handicapped only; day care centers, adult and handicapped only). 83. Surveying services (SIC 8713). 84. Tax return preparation services (SIC 7291). 85. Travel agencies (SIC 4724, no other transportation services). 86. United State Postal Service (SIC 4311, except major distribution center). 87. Veterinary services (SIC 0742, excluding outdoor kenneling). 88. Videotape rental (SIC 7841). 89. Wallpaper stores (SIC 5231). 90. Any other commercial use which is comparable in nature with the list of permitted uses, as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), pursuant to the process outlined in the LDC. II. Accessory Uses A. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted uses above. B. Stormwater management treatment, conveyance facilities, and structures, such as berms, swales, and outfall structures. C. Outside storage or display of merchandise when specifically permitted for a use, otherwise prohibited, subject to LDC Section 4.02.12. Page 352 of 702 Page 5 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx EXHIBIT B TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The table below sets forth the development standards for the uses within the Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD. 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: TRACT R DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TRACT R MULTI- FAMILY TRACT R CLUBHOUSE/ RECREATION BUILDINGS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA N/A N/A MIN. LOT WIDTH N/A N/A MIN. FLOOR AREA 700 S.F./D.U. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (MEASURED FROM THE TRACT BOUNDARY¹) NORTH (SIDE YARD) 25’ 25’ SOUTH (SIDE YARD) 20’ 20’ EAST, ADJ TO AG ZONED PARCEL (SIDE YARD) 20’ 20’ EAST, ADJ TO GREENWAY ROAD (FRONT YARD) 30’ 30’ WEST, ADJ TO MH ZONED PARCEL (REAR YARD) 20’ 20’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK 0’ from LME² 0’ from LME² MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 50% of the sum of the Zoned Heights of the buildings, but not less than 15’ 50% of the sum of the Zoned Heights of the buildings, but not less than 15’ MAX. HEIGHT ZONED 45’ NTE 3 STORIES 35’ NTE 2 STORIES MAX. HEIGHT ACTUAL 52’ 42’ ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MINIMUM YARDS (MEASURED FROM THE TRACT BOUNDARY¹) NORTH (SIDE YARD) SPS SPS SOUTH (SIDE YARD) 10’ 10’ EAST, ADJ TO AG ZONED PARCEL (SIDE YARD) SPS SPS EAST, ADJ TO GREENWAY ROAD (FRONT YARD) SPS SPS WEST, ADJ TO MH ZONED PARCEL (REAR YARD) SPS SPS MIN. LAKE SETBACK 0’ from LME² 0’ from LME² MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES SPS SPS MAX. HEIGHT ZONED 25’ 25’ MAX. HEIGHT ACTUAL 32’ 32’ N/A = not applicable; SPS = same as principal structures; NTE = not to exceed; S.F = square feet; BH = building height; LME = lake maintenance easement; ADJ = adjacent. Page 353 of 702 Page 6 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx TABLE II: TRACT C DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TRACT C COMMERCIAL PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 10,000 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH 100’ MINIMUM YARDS (MEASURED FROM THE TRACT BOUNDARY) NORTH (REAR YARD) 10’ SOUTH, ADJ TO TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (FRONT YARD) 20’ EAST, ADJ TO C-3 ZONED PARCEL (SIDE YARD) 10’ WEST, ADJ TO AG ZONED PARCEL (SIDE YARD) 10’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK 0’ from LME² MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 50% of the sum of the Zoned Heights of the buildings, but not less than 15’ MAX. HEIGHT ZONED 35’ NTE 2 STORIES MAX. HEIGHT ACTUAL 42’ ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MINIMUM YARDS (MEASURED FROM THE TRACT BOUNDARY) NORTH (REAR YARD) SPS SOUTH, ADJ TO TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (FRONT YARD) SPS EAST, ADJ TO C-3 ZONED PARCEL (SIDE YARD) SPS WEST, ADJ TO AG ZONED PARCEL (SIDE YARD) SPS MIN. LAKE SETBACK 0’ from LME² MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES SPS MAX. HEIGHT ZONED 25’ MAX. HEIGHT ACTUAL 32’ N/A = not applicable; SPS = same as principal structures; NTE = not to exceed; S.F = square feet; BH = building height; LME = lake maintenance easement; ADJ = adjacent. Notes 1. Residential Buildings must be designed to provide a minimum 23’ setback from the building to the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, unless vehicle parking areas are designed such that parked vehicles will not encroach over the adjacent sidewalk. 2. The LME shall be a separate tract on the plat or SDP. Page 354 of 702 Page 7 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx TABLE III: PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS Direction Buffer Type North 15’ Type B South, adjacent to A zoned property 10’ Type A South, adjacent to Tamiami Trail East 20’ Type D South, adjacent to C-3 zoned property 15’ Type B East, adjacent to Greenway Road 20’ Type D East, adjacent to C-3 zoned property 10’ Type A West, adjacent to MH zoned property 15’ Type B West, adjacent to A zoned property 10’ Type A Page 355 of 702 Page 8 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx Page 356 of 702 Page 9 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx EXHIBIT D TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 (ID NO. 00740080005) & PARCEL 2 (ID NO. 00741080101): COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, N0°11'20"E, 745.35 FEET; THENCE N89°56'55"W, 508.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N89°56'55"W, 317.20 FEET; THENCE N54°18'59"W, 254.14 FEET; THENCE N0°25'53"E, 330.61 FEET; THENCE S89°56'55"E, 515.39 FEET; THENCE S0°11'20"W, 473.41 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AND BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 12, AND; THE SOUTH 216.00 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, N0°11'20"E, 745.35 FEET FOR A PLACE OF BEGINNING; THENCE N89°56'55"W, 508.47 FEET; THENCE N0°11'20"E, 473.41 FEET; THENCE S89°56'55"E, 508.47 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S0°11'20"W, 473.41 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, AND BEING PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 12. LESS AND EXCEPT THEREFROM THE EAST 30 FEET OF SAID PARCEL. PARCEL 3 (ID NO. 00738920009): COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, N0°11'20"E, 154.53 FEET FOR A PLACE OF BEGINNING; THENCE N54°18'59"W, 1014.13 FEET; THENCE S89°56'55"E, 825.67 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S0°11'20"W, 590.82 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. PARCEL 4 (ID NO. 00738960001): COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, N0°11'20"E, 154.53 FEET; THENCE N54°18'59"W, 1259.27 FEET TO A PLACE OF BEGINNING: THENCE CONTINUING N54°18'59"W, 423.66 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/4 OF THE EAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE N0°25'53"E, 522.53 FEET; THENCE S89°56'55"E, 345.98 FEET; THENCE S0°25'53"W, 769.35 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. Page 357 of 702 Page 10 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx PARCEL 7 (ID NO. 00739160004): LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 OF AN UNRECORDED PLAT, BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, SOUTH 00°00'00" RUN 335.26 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH 54°36'00" WEST 484.26 FEET TO A POINT ON NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 41 AND BEING POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE NORTH 54°36'00" WEST 900.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-WAY-LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 41 TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 35°24'00" EAST 400 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 54°36'00" EAST 900 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE SOUTH 35°24'00" WEST 400 FEET TO A POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING 8.26 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN SECTION 12, AND A FRACTIONAL PART IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS BEGINNING AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 12 RUN SOUTH 0°00'00" 335.26 FEET TO A POINT ON NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 41; THENCE NORTH 54°36'00" WEST 1184.26 FEET TO A SET CONCRETE MARKER ON NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 41 BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE NORTH 35°24'00" EAST 400 FEET TO A SET CONCRETE MARKER, THENCE NORTH 54°36'00" WEST 200 FEET TO A SET CONCRETE MARKER, THENCE SOUTH 35°24'00" WEST 400 FEET TO A SET CONCRETE MARKER ON NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 41, THENCE SOUTH 54°36'00" EAST 200 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING 1.83 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Page 358 of 702 Page 11 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx EXHIBIT E TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation 1 (Buffer Requirements) seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02- Buffer Requirements, Table 2.4, Footnote 3, which states that “Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared [Type A] buffer 15 feet wide with abutting property contributing 7.5 feet” to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each property within the MPUD contributing 5 feet. 2. Deviation 2 (Buffer Requirements) seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 – Buffer Requirements, Table 2.4, which requires a 20-foot wide, Type D perimeter landscape buffer where the proposed multi-family development is adjacent to Cecil Road to instead allow for a 15-foot-wide Type B perimeter landscape buffer. 3. Deviation 3 (Parking Space Requirements) seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04— Parking Space Requirements, Table 17, which requires a total of 600 parking spaces for the proposed multi-family dwelling units and accessory amenity uses located within Tract R to instead allow 525 parking spaces if the SDP is for a housing mix of 138 1-bedroom; 132 2-bedroom; and 30 3-bedroom units; and the amenities include 3,500 sf leasing office, 1,500 sf gym, 3,000 sf meeting space, 1,500 sf pool, 1 bocce court and 1 putting green. Any change to the foregoing will require an Administrative Parking Reduction per the LDC with the associated parking demand study. Page 359 of 702 Page 12 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx EXHIBIT F TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS The purpose of this section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. 1. PUD MONITORING a. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for MPUD monitoring until close-out of the MPUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all MPUD commitments until close-out of the MPUD. At the time of this MPUD approval, the Managing Entity is DJ Greenway, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to the County that includes an acknowledgment of the commitment required by the MPUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the MPUD is closed out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of MPUD commitments. b. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligation imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. (Section 125.022, FS) c. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. TRANSPORTATION a. The maximum total daily trip generation for the MPUD shall not exceed 492 two- way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. b. Vehicular and pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the west of Tract C to allow access to all connection points with the adjacent property, consistent with the Page 360 of 702 Page 13 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx conceptual MPUD Master Plan, Exhibit C. The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross-access easement, or an access easement to the public for public use without responsibility of maintenance by Collier County, will be provided at time of the first Site Development Plan or Plat. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the owner or successors or assigns prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The interconnections shall remain open to the public. c. Vehicular and pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the east of Tract C to allow access to all connection points with the adjacent property, consistent with the conceptual MPUD Master Plan, Exhibit C. The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross-access easement, or an access easement to the public for public use without responsibility of maintenance by Collier County, will be provided at time of the first Site Development Plan or Plat. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the owner or successors or assigns prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The interconnections shall remain open to the public. d. The owner, its successors and assigns, shall pay its proportionate fair share of the intersection improvements at the US-41 and Greenway intersection and applicable portions of Greenway Road, which includes that portion of Greenway Rd from US 41 to the northernmost MPUD property line contiguous to Greenway Rd. The intersection improvements include but are not limited to signalization, addition of turns, extending of turn lanes, sidewalk improvements and drainage improvements by FDOT and/or Collier County. The proportionate fair share of the MPUD impacts shall be determined by the County at time of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or first Plat approval based on the project's trips on Greenway Rd. The owner, its successors and assigns, shall make payment to Collier County at time of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO) in the MPUD. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL: a. The minimum required native preservation is ±0.06 Ac. (25% of 0.22 Ac.). Pursuant to LDC Sec. 3.05.07.H.1.f., the developer will mitigate the preservation requirement off-site or via payment-in-lieu. If mitigated off-site, the developer shall donate ±0.24 Ac. (±0.06 Ac x 4) to Collier County or to another government agency. b. A listed species management plan shall be provided for the project at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. The management plan shall address how listed species shall be protected. The management plan shall also address black bear (Ursus Americanus Floridanus) management. 4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING a. Affordable units. Of the dwelling units constructed within each phase, the following requirements shall apply: Page 361 of 702 Page 14 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx i. Fifteen percent (15%) of the units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. ii. Fifteen percent (15%) of the units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the AMI for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as provided by Collier County. iii. The Affordable Units will be subject to the provisions of under this Section 4 for a period of thirty years (30) from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first Affordable Unit of each phase. iv. At each SDP/SDPA, the SDP/SDPA shall identify and quantify the 15% of the units that will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80% of AMI for Collier County and the 15% of the units that will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of AMI for Collier County. v. By way of example, the 2024 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits are: b. Preference to Affordable Units shall be given to Essential Service Personnel (ESP) and military veterans. i. For the purposes of this ordinance, ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other educational personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, active duty military, or a governmental employee. Page 362 of 702 Page 15 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx ii. Each Affordable Unit shall be held vacant and advertised for ESP and military veterans in accordance with paragraph iii below for a minimum of 90 days before the issuance of the unit’s certificate of occupancy. In the event that no ESP or military veteran rents the available Affordable Unit, then the unit may also be offered to the general public (non-ESP/military veteran) but shall remain an Affordable Unit and be rent and income restricted accordingly. Each subsequent vacancy of an Affordable Unit shall be advertised to ESP and military veterans in accordance with paragraph iii below and may also be offered to the general public (non-ESP/military veteran) but shall remain an Affordable Unit and be rent and income-restricted accordingly. iii. At a minimum, advertising shall 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 Emergency Medical Services and fire districts, and the Collier County Sheriff's Office. iv. Promotional materials for the development shall identify that the project prioritizes Affordable Units for ESP and military veteran households. v. The owner shall maintain a waiting list of pre-qualified ESP and military veteran renters for subsequent vacancies. Waitlist participants shall be notified in advance of subsequent vacancies. vi. This commitment for ESP and military veteran preference shall remain in effect for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the first Affordable Unit of each phase. c. As part of Collier County’s annual monitoring for this PUD, the owner shall provide to Collier County Community and Human Services Division (CHS) an annual report at least forty-five (45) days prior to the anniversary of the adoption of this MPUD that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of income and rent- restricted units. The annual report will be provided in a format approved by CHS. The owner further agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. 5. PUBLIC UTILITIES a. The project shall connect to the potable water lines available on Greenway Road and Kathy Lane. b. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the water distribution/transmission system may be required to Page 363 of 702 Page 16 of 16 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Tamiami Trail Greenway Road MPUD (PL-20230008640) (10-2-2024).docx adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow to the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by the County Manager or designee during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. c. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by the County Manager or designee during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. 6. EMERGENCY SERVICES a. Prior to the issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy, the project shall provide a one-time shelter mitigation contribution in the amount of two hundred forty (240) general population cots and seventeen (17) special needs cots and a one- time developer’s contribution of one (1) 45-KW towable generator to the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services. Page 364 of 702 Page 365 of 702 Page 366 of 702 Page 367 of 702 Page 368 of 702 Page 369 of 702 Page 370 of 702 Page 371 of 702 Page 372 of 702 Page 373 of 702 Page 374 of 702 Page 375 of 702 Page 376 of 702 Page 377 of 702 Page 378 of 702 Page 379 of 702 Page 380 of 702 Page 381 of 702 Page 382 of 702 Page 383 of 702 Page 384 of 702 Page 385 of 702 Page 386 of 702 Page 387 of 702 Page 388 of 702 Page 389 of 702 Page 390 of 702 Page 391 of 702 Page 392 of 702 Page 393 of 702 Page 394 of 702 Page 395 of 702 Page 396 of 702 Page 397 of 702 Page 398 of 702 Page 399 of 702 Page 400 of 702 Page 401 of 702 Page 402 of 702 Page 403 of 702 Page 404 of 702 Page 405 of 702 Page 406 of 702 Page 407 of 702 Page 408 of 702 Page 409 of 702 Page 410 of 702 Page 411 of 702 Page 412 of 702 Page 413 of 702 Page 414 of 702 Page 415 of 702 Page 416 of 702 Page 417 of 702 Page 418 of 702 Page 419 of 702 Page 420 of 702 Page 421 of 702 Page 422 of 702 Page 423 of 702 Page 424 of 702 Page 425 of 702 Page 426 of 702 Page 427 of 702 Page 428 of 702 Page 429 of 702 Page 430 of 702 Page 431 of 702 Page 432 of 702 Page 433 of 702 Page 434 of 702 Page 435 of 702 Page 436 of 702 Page 437 of 702 Page 438 of 702 Page 439 of 702 Page 440 of 702 Page 441 of 702 Page 442 of 702 Page 443 of 702 Page 444 of 702 Page 445 of 702 Page 446 of 702 Page 447 of 702 Page 448 of 702 Page 449 of 702 Page 450 of 702 Page 451 of 702 Page 452 of 702 Page 453 of 702 Page 454 of 702 Page 455 of 702 Page 456 of 702 Page 457 of 702 Page 458 of 702 Page 459 of 702 Page 460 of 702 Page 461 of 702 Page 462 of 702 Page 463 of 702 Page 464 of 702 Page 465 of 702 Page 466 of 702 Page 467 of 702 Page 468 of 702 Page 469 of 702 Page 470 of 702 Page 471 of 702 Page 472 of 702 Page 473 of 702 Page 474 of 702 Page 475 of 702 Page 476 of 702 Page 477 of 702 Page 478 of 702 Page 479 of 702 Page 480 of 702 Page 481 of 702 Page 482 of 702 Page 483 of 702 Page 484 of 702 Page 485 of 702 Page 486 of 702 Page 487 of 702 Page 488 of 702 Page 489 of 702 Page 490 of 702 Page 491 of 702 Page 492 of 702 Page 493 of 702 Page 494 of 702 Page 495 of 702 Page 496 of 702 Page 497 of 702 Page 498 of 702 Page 499 of 702 Page 500 of 702 Page 501 of 702 Page 502 of 702 Page 503 of 702 Page 504 of 702 Page 505 of 702 Page 506 of 702 Page 507 of 702 Page 508 of 702 Page 509 of 702 Page 510 of 702 Page 511 of 702 Page 512 of 702 Page 513 of 702 Page 514 of 702 Page 515 of 702 Page 516 of 702 Page 517 of 702 Page 518 of 702 Page 519 of 702 Page 520 of 702 Page 521 of 702 Page 522 of 702 Page 523 of 702 Page 524 of 702 Page 525 of 702 Page 526 of 702 Page 527 of 702 Page 528 of 702 Page 529 of 702 Page 530 of 702 Page 531 of 702 Page 532 of 702 Page 533 of 702 Page 534 of 702 Page 535 of 702 Page 536 of 702 Page 537 of 702 Page 538 of 702 Page 539 of 702 Page 540 of 702 Page 541 of 702 Page 542 of 702 Page 543 of 702 Page 544 of 702 Page 545 of 702 Page 546 of 702 Page 547 of 702 Page 548 of 702 Page 549 of 702 Page 550 of 702 Page 551 of 702 Page 552 of 702 Page 553 of 702 Page 554 of 702 Page 555 of 702 Page 556 of 702 Page 557 of 702 Page 558 of 702 Page 559 of 702 Page 560 of 702 Page 561 of 702 Page 562 of 702 Page 563 of 702 Page 564 of 702 Page 565 of 702 Page 566 of 702 Page 567 of 702 Page 568 of 702 Page 569 of 702 Page 570 of 702 Page 571 of 702 Page 572 of 702 Page 573 of 702 Page 574 of 702 Page 575 of 702 Page 576 of 702 Page 577 of 702 Page 578 of 702 Page 579 of 702 Page 580 of 702 Page 581 of 702 Page 582 of 702 Page 583 of 702 Page 584 of 702 Page 585 of 702 Page 586 of 702 Page 587 of 702 Page 588 of 702 Page 589 of 702 Page 590 of 702 Page 1 of 2 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Deviations and Justifications (rev 11-13-2024).docx TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD DEVIATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS 1. Deviation 1 (Buffer Requirements) seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02- Buffer Requirements, Table 2.4, Footnote 3, which states that “Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared [Type A] buffer 15 feet wide with abutting property contributing 7.5 feet” to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each property within the MPUD contributing 5 feet. Justification: Tract C is adjacent to undeveloped, A zoned land to the east, Tract R to the north, commercial development to the east, and Tamiami Trail E to the south. The perimeter buffers will ensure the necessary screening and buffering of Tract C to the surrounding area. The reduced width landscape buffers will be internal to the project. A 7.5-foot width still provides sufficient space for attractive, appropriate landscaping and will not result in a negative impact to the surrounding area. 2. Deviation 2 (Buffer Requirements) seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 – Buffer Requirements, Table 2.4, which requires a 20-foot wide, Type D perimeter landscape buffer where the proposed multi-family development is adjacent to Cecil Road to instead allow for a 15-foot-wide Type B perimeter landscape buffer. Justification: Cecil Road is an unimproved dirt drive ±12 feet in width that provides access to one single-family home external to the site. Due to the low traffic, the proposed 15-foot Type B perimeter buffer will provide attractive, appropriate landscape and sufficient buffering and screening for the proposed development and adjacent single-family home. 3. Deviation 3 (Parking Space Requirements) seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04— Parking Space Requirements, Table 17, which requires a total of 600 parking spaces for the proposed multi-family dwelling units and accessory amenity uses located within Tract R to instead allow 525 parking spaces if the SDP is for a housing mix of 138 1-bedroom; 132 2-bedroom; and 30 3-bedroom units; and the amenities include 3,500 sf leasing office, 1,500 sf gym, 3,000 sf meeting space, 1,500 sf pool, 1 bocce court and 1 putting green. Any change to the foregoing will require an Administrative Parking Reduction per the LDC with the associated parking demand study. Justification: Based on the Collier County LDC parking standards criterion for multi- family dwellings and accessory recreational uses, the parking requirement for the subject property is 600 parking spaces. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) specific parking land use codes for the multi-family dwellings and the Collier County LDC parking criteria for the accessory residential uses, the overall parking requirement for the proposed development is 511 parking spaces. Though more relevant, the ITE parking rates may be considered more generalized since the data covers a broader spectrum of projects across the country. Page 591 of 702 Page 2 of 2 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\PUDZ\Post 3rd Resubmittal\Deviations and Justifications (rev 11-13-2024).docx Based on site-specific, local parking rates and consistent with the ITE Parking Generation Manual time of day distribution, the minimum number of parking spaces required for the proposed residential development is determined to be 516 parking spaces. A Parking Demand Study was prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. Based on the results of this analysis, the peak parking demands for the proposed individual uses occur at different times. The proposed developments parking supply equates to 1.75 parking spaces per unit (525 total parking spaces) provides an adequate parking supply with a factor of safety to satisfy the parking demand for the proposed development. The overall parking supply and demand includes recreational facilities serving the community. Such a comprehensive approach is subject to review and approval of an Administrative Parking Reduction (APR), as permitted by County code. Please see the Parking Demand Study for additional details. Page 592 of 702 Page 593 of 702 Page 594 of 702 Page 595 of 702 Page 596 of 702 Page 597 of 702 Page 598 of 702 Page 599 of 702 Page 600 of 702 Page 601 of 702 Page 602 of 702 Page 603 of 702 Page 604 of 702 Page 605 of 702 Page 606 of 702 Page 607 of 702 Page 608 of 702 Page 609 of 702 Page 610 of 702 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 December 19, 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 AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 300 MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE, C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES. [PL20230008643] AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITH THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITHIN THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO BE KNOWN AS TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 300 MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE, C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20230008640] Page 611 of 702 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 with the Zoning Division, prior to December 19, 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. Page 612 of 702 Collier County Planning Commission Joseph K. Schmitt, Chairman Page 613 of 702 See reverse for more information PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE East Trail Mixed Use Project (Small Scale GMPA) & (PUDZ) Petition Type: Growth Management Amendment Plan & Planned Unit Development Rezone Petition No.: PL20230008643 & PL20230008640 Planner Name: Parker Klopf & Sean Sammon Phone: (239) 252-2471 & (239) 252-8422 Collier County Planning Commission: Date: 12/19/2024 Time: 09:00 AM Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Building F, Naples, FL 34112 This is to advise you of an upcoming public hearing because you may have interest in the proceedings, or you own property located near the vicinity of the following property. For more information, or to register to participate remotely: https://bit.ly/Public__Hearings *Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For difficulties registering please call Ailyn Padron at (239) 252-5187 or email to ailyn.padron@CollierCountyFL.Gov. Meeting information: Individual speakers may be limited to five (5) minutes on any item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the agenda packets must submit materials a minimum of ten (10) days prior to the respective public hearing, to the county staff member noted above. All material used in presentations before the Collier County Planning Commission will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and 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. 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 Department, 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. This petition and other pertinent information related to this petition is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Community Development Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Page 614 of 702 Collier County Planning Commission to consider the following: 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 AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 300 MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE, C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES. [PL20230008643] AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITH THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITHIN THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO BE KNOWN AS TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 300 MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE, C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20230008640] Page 615 of 702 Page 616 of 702 Page 617 of 702 Page 618 of 702 Page 619 of 702 Page 620 of 702 Page 621 of 702 Page 622 of 702 12/19/2024 Item # 9.C ID# 2024-2131 PL20230008643 Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict (GMPA)- 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 and map series by changing the land use designation of property from Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict to Urban, Mixed Use District, Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict, To allow construction of 300 multi-family rental units with affordable housing and up to 64,000 square feet of gross floor area of Commercial Intermediate, C-3 Zoning District Uses, and directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department Of Commerce. The subject property is located north of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 441 feet west of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 24.41± acres. [Coordinator: Parker Klopf, Planner III] (Companion item to PUDZ-PL20230008640) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report CCPC PL20230008643 2. Ordinance 111924 3. Commercial Needs Analysis (revised March 2024) 4. NIM Documents (5-24-2024) 5. Legal Ad & Sign Posting Page 623 of 702 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2024 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20230008643/SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISRICT (Companion to PUDZ- PL20230008640) ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) _______________________________________________________________________________ AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: Robert Mulhare, FAICP/ Jeremie Chastain, AICP Holes Montes, A Bowman Company 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Applicant: David Stevens & Robert Carroll Owner: KELVIN ANDERSON Investment Properties Corporation of Naples DJ GREENWAY LLC 3838 Tamiami Trail JD GREEWANY LLC Naples, FL 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises ±24.41 acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road in Section 12, Township 51 South, and Range 26 East. Page 624 of 702 PL20230008643 2 Page 625 of 702 PL20230008643 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 The Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict that will provide lands for a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units and a maximum of 64,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) of Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district uses. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Subject Property: The ±24.41-acre subject properties consist of residential/commercial Agricultural uses and vacant property. The properties are designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, and Urban Residential Subdistrict, as well as being located within the boundaries of the US 41 East Corridor Overlay, specifically within the boundaries of an identified as a community center. 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; Rural Agricultural (A). Land Use: Single-family Residential. East: Future Land Use Designation; Rural Agricultural/Receiving Subdistrict of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay. Zoned: Rural Agricultural/Receiving subdistrict of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay. Land Use: Single-family Residential South: Future Land Use Designation; Urban Coastal Fringe. Zoned: Charlee Estates PUD/Marco Shores/Fiddlers Creek PUD. Land Use: Single-family Residential West: Future Land Use Designation; Urban Residential. Zoned: Agricultural (A)/ Mobile Home (MH). Land Use: Church/ Mobile Home Residential In summary, the existing and planned land uses in the larger surrounding area are primarily single- family and Agricultural Uses. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The subject ±24.41-acre site currently consists of four (4) residential units spread across several parcels, vacant agricultural land, and related commercial agricultural uses. This accumulation of properties is within a pocket of urban residentially designated land bordered by the Receiving Designation of the Rural Fringe Mixed-use district to the East, Urban Coastal Fringe subdistrict to the South, and Urban Residential Fringe to the West. All of these subdistricts have limitations on the amount of density and commercial development allowed within them; however, the urban mixed-use designation is not subject to these same restrictions as justified by the commercial needs analysis. As stated above, the subject property is located within the Urban Mixed-Use District, which is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed- Page 626 of 702 PL20230008643 4 use developments such as Planned Unit Developments such as the proposed development. The project is also located within the boundaries of the US41 East Corridor Overlay, specifically within the boundaries identified as a community center. Per the Future Land Use Amendment, Community Centers are proposed to include moderate to low-intensity mixed-use development, commercial, residential development, hotel/motel at a maximum density of 26 units per acre, and certain economic development uses. The proposed maximum density of 300 multi-family dwelling units equates to a density of 12.3 units an acre. This is achieved by committing 30% of the total units to those households that qualify for the affordable housing program. More specifically, fifteen percent (15%) of the units are to be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income (AMI), and fifteen percent (15%) of the units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the Area Median Income (AMI). While these commitments are beneficial for the county, they only generate an allowable density of 10.5 units an acre based on the current affordable housing bonus program. However, the commitments provided for in the proposed subdistrict are consistent with the proposed changes to the affordable housing bonus program (PL20210001291), making it supportable by staff. The proposed subdistrict also includes a maximum of 64,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) of Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district uses. The applicant provided a commercial needs analysis prepared by Zonda which identified analysis of the existing FLUE designation/overlay, projected traffic counts/drive times to employment centers, retail supply/demand, and an economic overview. As stated in the provided study, the C-3 uses included within the proposed subdistrict align with the uses allowed within neighborhood centers in the US41 overlay, excluding gas service stations, a use discouraged by the overlay. The study also identified a 15- and 30-minute dive time to needed goods, services, and employment centers for which the study identified that much of developed Collier County and southern Lee County is within 45 minutes of the subject property. This includes numerous healthcare employers, including Lee Health at Coconut Point, commercial activity centers such as Pine Ridge Rd. and Airport Rd., and most NCH Healthcare System and Arthrex facilities, conveniently located within 15 to 30 minutes of the site. This study noted that the highest proportion of commuter destinations for residents which includes the activity center at US41 E and Collier Blvd. More than 4,800 individuals traveled outside of the radius for employment, indicating the need for more employment opportunities in the area. Employment sectors for inflow and outflow are heavily concentrated in accommodations, food services, retail trade, and health care sectors; combined, these sectors, according to the study, account for 42.2% of all employment in the area, meaning that the commercial area proposed as part of the amendment will allow for easier access to employment centers by reducing trip length. Zonda reviewed vacant commercial inventory within a 15-minute drive time of the subject property. The only vacant commercial is at the Publix-anchored Shoppes at Fiddler’s Creek Plaza. There are three out parcels available for development, which could be food service or a small strip center. There is also an 11.69-acre parcel that will likely be developed into a neighborhood center that draws traffic from the neighboring Publix, which is essentially an expansion of the currently developed Publix plaza. Additionally, at least one pending PUDZ/GMPA is currently pending within the vicinity of the subject property. Per Collier County records, PL20230007470 and PL20230007471, a PUDZ and GMPA respectively, will include a maximum of 30,000 square feet of retail space with no grocery component. Per the International Council of Shopping Centers, a Page 627 of 702 PL20230008643 5 30,000-square-foot center falls under the “Strip/Convenience” center category. Ultimately, the Zonda Commercial Needs Analysis noted that the future development of this commercial space will come with additional household growth to the submarket; it is highly unlikely to be sufficient for the expected demand in the next five years. The 64,000 square feet of retail space proposed in the subdistrict is supportable given the expected population growth and existing and approved commercial space in the area. 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 and commercial uses within the proposed subdistrict is inconsistent with the urban residential subdistrict, staff agrees that there is a need for additional housing opportunities and commercial allowances to serve those future residents of this portion of Collier County. 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 Statues 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 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 Page 628 of 702 PL20230008643 6 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 the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. Page 629 of 702 PL20230008643 7 (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 ±24.41acres.] b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to and are adopted simultaneously with the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan, and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (a) 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: Both the PUD Rezone and the companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) were presented and discussed at the NIM. In total, there were five members of the public present. Questions on building height, landscape buffer, and water and sewer impact were confirmed. Concerns were brought up about Traffic at US41 and Greenway, the proposed use of a carwash, the requested density of affordable housing, and the environmental impact, were all addressed. A NIM summary is included in Exhibit B, beginning on page 236. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • There is need for additional housing options, capital investment, and economic development that will 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 ±24.41 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 Agriculture; it has been partially cleared and has a single-family home onsite. The property contains 0.20 acres of native vegetation, which will require .05 acres for preservation. Page 630 of 702 PL20230008643 8 The proposed GMP Amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the Growth Management Plan. The native vegetation preservation requirement of 0.05 acres (25% of 0.20 acres) will be mitigated offsite, thus meeting the requirements of CCME, Policy 6.1.2, and LDC section 3.05.07. The gopher tortoise burrows observed onsite will require consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) before construction, as required by CCME Objective 7.1. 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 identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on November 22, 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the subdistrict as proposed and recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward petition PL20230008643 Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 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 January 28, 2025, BCC meeting. Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Ordinance 3. Commercial Needs Analysis (revised March 2021) 4. NIM Documents (May 24, 2024) 5. Legal Ad & Sign Posting Page 631 of 702 [23-CMP-01208/1858464/1]31 18-CMP-01000 PL20230008643 Tamiami Trail Greenway Rd SSGMPA 11/19/24 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. *** *** *** *** are a break in text 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 2025- _______ 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 AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 300 MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE, C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES. [PL20230008643] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Community Planning Act, formerly 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, Investment Properties Corporation of Naples requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small-Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or a rural area of opportunity; and Page 632 of 702 [23-CMP-01208/1858464/1]31 18-CMP-01000 PL20230008643 Tamiami Trail Greenway Rd SSGMPA 11/19/24 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. *** *** *** *** are a break in text 2 of 3 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 concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on __________________ 2025; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of the law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and shall be transmitted to the Florida Department 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. SECTION THREE: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 government 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 Page 633 of 702 [23-CMP-01208/1858464/1]31 18-CMP-01000 PL20230008643 Tamiami Trail Greenway Rd SSGMPA 11/19/24 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. *** *** *** *** are a break in text 3 of 3 permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commenced before it has become effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this _____ day of _______________________ 2025. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA __________________________ BY: ______________________________ Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: ________________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A – Text and Map Page 634 of 702 Page 1 of 2 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit IV.B.1 - GMPA Text (9-3-2024).docx EXHIBIT A A. URBAN – MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 30. Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict I. Urban Designation b. Non-residential uses including: 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban – Mixed Use District, …Ivy Medical Center Subdistrict; Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict; and as allowed by certain FLUE policies. A. Urban Mixed Use District 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 30. Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict The Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict is comprised of ±24.41 acres and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road, as depicted on the Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Inset Map. Allowable uses are: 1) up to 300 multi-family dwelling units; and 2) a maximum of 64,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) of Commercial Intermediate, C-3 zoning district uses. This subdistrict shall be rezoned to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) and shall include development standards to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. Page 635 of 702 Page 2 of 2 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023075\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit IV.B.1 - GMPA Text (9-3-2024).docx a. To achieve the 300 dwelling units, the MPUD shall commit to the following. b. Affordable units. Of the dwelling units constructed within each phase, the following requirements will apply: 1. Fifteen percent (15%) of the units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. Fifteen percent (15%) of the units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the AMI for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as provided by Collier County. 2. At each SDP/SDPA, the SDP/SDPA shall identify and quantify the 15% of the units that will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80% of AMI for Collier County and the 15% of the units that will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County. 3. As part of Collier County’s annual monitoring for the PUD, the owner will provide to Collier County Community and Human Services Division (CHS) an annual report at least forty-five (45) days prior to the anniversary of the adoption of the PUD that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of income and rent-restricted units. The annual report will be provided in a format approved by CHS. The owner further agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. Page 636 of 702 Tamiami TRL E Greenway RDJoseph LNAv i a m a r C I R Cecil RD James RD Apalachee ST Sandfield LN Maretee DR Achill DR Kathy LN Andrea LN Melody LN Mesquite DR Sandpiper DRDorado Run CTEXHIBIT A PL202300 08643 TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY, FLOR IDA º0 300 600150 Feet D R A F T SUBJECTSITE ADOPTED - XXXX, XXXX(Ord. No. XXXX-X) PREPARED BY: BETH YANG, AICPGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT.FILE:TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY RD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT SITE LOCATION MAP DRAFT.MXDDATE: 11/12/2024 LEGEND TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT Page 637 of 702 COLLIER BLVDTURNER RIVER ROADSR 29INTE RSTAT E 7 5 IMMOKALEE RD OIL WELL RD COLLIER BLVDTAMIAMI TRL E CR 846 SR 82 LIVINGSTON RDSR 29 NSAN MARCO RDTAMIAMI TRL NDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE RD NPINE RIDGE RD EVERGLADES BLVD NRADIO RD GOLDEN GATE PKY DESOTO BLVD SLOGAN BLVD NSANTA BARBARA BLVDDESOTO BLVD NVANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN GATE BLVD EVANDERBILT DREVERGLADES BLVD SAIRPORT PULLING RD CORKSCREW RDGOLDEN GATE BLVD W COPELAND AVE S9TH ST NS 1ST STN 15TH STB A L D E A G L E D R GREEN BLVDOLD US 41LAKE TRAFFORD RD RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD WILSON BLVD NN COLLIER BLVDCOUNTY BARN RDS COLLI ER BLVDBONITA BEACH RD 111TH AVE N COLLIER AVENEW MARKET RD W WILSON BLVD SW MAIN ST WIGGINS PA SS RD 9TH ST SSEAGATE DR I-75 S I-75 NSR 29Tamiami TRL E Oil Well RD Immokalee RD Collier BLVDEverglades BLVDSR 82 CR 84 6 E Livingston RDDesoto BLVDS a n M a r c o R DAirport RD NTamiami TRL NSR 29 NWilson BLVDDavis BLVD Pine Ridge RD Radi o RD Logan BLVD NVanderbilt Beach RDVanderbilt DRGoodlette-Frank RD NRandall BLVD G o l d e n G a t e P K W Y Camp Keais RDCorkscrew RDSanta Barbara BLVDGolden Gate BLV D E 9th ST NOld 41Bald Eagle DRN C ollier B LV D Westclox ST Thomasson DR E Main ST Bayshore DRSmallwood DRI-75 NI-75 SBayshore DRI- 7 5 SI-75 SI-75 SI-75 N °HENDRY COUNTYMONROE COUNTY LEE COUNTY HENDRY COUNTY 2024-2050FUTURE LAND USE MAPCollier County Florida DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVERLAY AREA ARE SHOWNON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TITLED:"COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP" BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVECOUNTY PARK DELNOR- WIGGINS STATE PARK CLAM PASSCOUNTY PARK CLAMBAYNRPA ROOKERY BAYNATIONAL ESTUARINERESEARCH RESERVE CITYOFNAPLES TIGERTAIL BEACHCOUNTY PARK CITY OF MARCO ISLAND COLLIER-SEMINOLE STATE PARK CAPE ROMANO PORTOF THEISLANDS CAPE ROMANO - TEN THOUSAND ISLANDSAQUATIC PRESERVE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK CHOKOLOSKEE PLANTATIONISLAND EVERGLADESCITY COPELAND BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE FAKAHATCHEE STRAND PRESERVE STATE PARK FLORIDA PANTHER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SOUTH GOLDENGATE ESTATESNRPA BELLE MEADEHYDROLOGICENHANCEMENTOVERLAY NORTHBELLEMEADENRPA IMMOKALEE CORKSCREWSWAMPSANCTUARY CREWNRPA LAKETRAFFORD R 25 E R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E T 46 ST 47 ST 48 ST 49 ST 50 ST 51 ST 52 ST 53 SR 25 E R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 ET 46 ST 47 ST 48 ST 49 ST 50 ST 51 ST 52 ST 53 S!"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 GOODLANDGulfofMex i c o 0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles J ?EXEMPTAREA PREPARED BY: BETH YANG, AICPGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTFILE: Tamiami Trail Greenway Rd Mixed Use Subdistrict FLU Map.mxdDATE: 11/12/24 GOLDEN GATE Veterans Memorial BLVD R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E (1) THIS MAP CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWITH MANAGEMENT PLAN.(2) THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES INCLUDES NUMEROUS MAPS IN ADDITION TO THIS COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THESE MAPS ARE LISTED AND LOCATED AT THE END OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT.(3) MOST SUBDISTRICTS AS DEPICTED MAY NOT BE TO SCALE. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES DEPICTS THESE SUBDISTRICTS TO SCALE.(4) THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS AREAS ARE ACQUIRED AND MAY INCLUDE OUTPARCELS. (5) REFER TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND THE IMMOKALEE ARE MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAPS OF THOSE COMMUNITIES. NOTE : BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICTOFFICE AND INFILL COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICTPUD NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE CENTER SUBDISTRICTRESIDENTIAL MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICT BELLEMEADENRPA Collier Boulevard Lord's WayMixed Use Subdistrict Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL BY RIGHT SUBDISTRICTSTRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES SUBDISTRICTTRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT URBAN DESIGNATION MIXED USE DISTRICT Urban Residential Subdistrict Residential Density Bands Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Meridian Village Mixed Use Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Creekside Commerce Park East Mixed Use Subdistrict Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Logan Blvd./Immokalee Rd. Commercial Infill Subdistrict Greenway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict Ivy Medical Center Subdistrict Germain Immokalee Commercial Subdistrict The Home Depot-SE Naples Commercial Subdistrict Boat House Commercial Subdistrict East Tamiami Trail Mixed Use Subdistrict COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT Livingston Road / Veterans Memorial BoulevardCommercial Infill Subdistrict Orange Blossom / Airport CrossroadsCommercial Subdistrict Davis-Radio Commercial Subdistrict Isles of Capri Mixed Use Infill Subdistrict Airport Carlisle Mixed Use Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach Road Residential Subdistrict Industrial District BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICTRESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDISTRICT BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICTRESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDISTRICT Livingston Road / Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Seed To TableCommercial Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach CommercialTourist Subdistrict COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict Livingston / Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict FUTURE LAND USE MAP A D O P T E D - J A N U A R Y, 1 9 8 9 A M E N D E D - J A N U A R Y, 1 9 9 0 A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y, 1 9 9 1 A M E N D E D - M AY, 1 9 9 2 A M E N D E D - M AY, 1 9 9 3 A M E N D E D - A P R I L , 1 9 9 4 A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R , 1 9 9 7 A M E N D E D - J A N U A R Y, 1 9 9 8 A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y, 1 9 9 9 A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y, 2 0 0 0 A M E N D E D - M AY, 2 0 0 0 A M E N D E D - D E C E M B E R , 2 0 0 0 A M E N D E D - M A R C H , 2 0 0 1 A M E N D E D - M AY 1 4 , 2 0 0 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 2 -2 4 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 1 9 , 2 0 0 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 2 -3 2 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 2 , 2 0 0 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 2 -5 4 ) A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y 11 , 2 0 0 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 3 -7 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 9 , 2 0 0 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 3 -4 3 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 1 0 , 2 0 0 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 3 -4 4 ) A M E N D E D - D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 0 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 3 -6 7 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 6 , 2 0 0 4(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 4 -7 1 ) A M E N D E D - J U N E 7 , 2 0 0 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 5 -2 5 )A M E N D E D - J A N U A R Y 2 5 , 2 0 0 7(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 7 -1 8 )A M E N D E D - D E C E M B E R 4 , 2 0 0 7(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 7 -7 8 ,7 9 ,8 1 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 1 4 , 2 0 0 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 8 -5 7 ,5 8 ,5 9 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 1 3 , 2 0 11(O r d . N o . 2 0 11 -2 6 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 1 3 , 2 0 11(O r d . N o . 2 0 11 -2 7 )A M E N D E D - J A N U A R Y 8 , 2 0 1 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 3 -1 4 )A M E N D E D - M AY 2 8 , 2 0 1 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 3 -4 1 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 1 0 , 2 0 1 4(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 4 -2 0 ) A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y 1 0 , 2 0 1 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 5 -1 3 )A M E N D E D - A P R I L 1 4 , 2 0 1 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 5 -2 6 ) A M E N D E D - J U N E 9 , 2 0 1 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 5 -3 2 )A M E N D E D - J U LY 7 , 2 0 1 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 5 -4 2 ) A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 2 2 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -2 5 ) A M E N D E D -D E C E M B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 2 -4 6 ) A M E N D E D - J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 2 -2 7 ) A M E N D E D - A P R I L 2 3 , 2 0 2 4(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 4 -2 0 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 11 , 2 0 2 4(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 4 -2 8 ) A M E N D E D - M AY 2 4 , 2 0 1 6(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 6 -1 5 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 1 3 , 2 0 1 7(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 7 -2 2 )A M E N D E D - D E C E M B E R 1 2 , 2 0 1 7(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 7 -4 6 )A M E N D E D - M AY 8 , 2 0 1 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 8 -2 3 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 1 2 , 2 0 1 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 8 -3 0 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 11 , 2 0 1 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 8 -4 2 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 2 5 , 2 0 1 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 8 -4 8 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 9(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 9 -2 1 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 8 , 2 0 1 9(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 9 -3 3 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 9 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -1 5 )A M E N D E D - J U LY 1 4 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -2 1 ) A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -3 1 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 7 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -3 4 ) A M E N D E D - N O V E M B E R 1 0 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -4 2 )A M E N D E D - M A R C H 1 , 2 0 2 1(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 1 -0 8 ) A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 7 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -3 6 ) A M E N D E D - A P R I L 2 7 , 2 0 2 1(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 1 -1 7 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 2 8 , 2 0 2 1(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 1 -3 2 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 6 , 2 0 2 1(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 1 -3 6 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 1 4 , 2 0 2 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 2 -2 4 ) A M E N D E D -S E P T E M B E R 2 7 , 2 0 2 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 2 -3 5 A )A M E N D E D -J A N U A R Y 1 0 , 2 0 2 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 3 -0 3 )A M E N D E D -J A N U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 3 -0 6 )A M E N D E D -J A N U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 3 -0 8 )A M E N D E D -A P R I L 2 5 , 2 0 2 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 3 -2 0 )A M E N D E D -M AY 2 3 , 2 0 2 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 3 -2 5 )A M E N D E D -M AY 2 3 , 2 0 2 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 3 -2 7 )A M E N D E D -O C T O B E R 2 4 , 2 0 2 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 3 -5 1 )A M E N D E D -N O V E M B E R 1 4 , 2 0 2 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 3 -5 7 )A M E N D E D -N O V E M B E R 1 4 , 2 0 2 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 3 -6 0 )A M E N D E D -M A R C H 2 6 , 2 0 2 4(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 4 -0 7 )A M E N D E D -M A R C H 2 6 , 2 0 2 4(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 4 -0 9 )A M E N D E D - A P R I L 9 , 2 0 2 4(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 4 -1 9 ) Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach / Coller Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict Goodlette / Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict Livingston Road / Veterans MemorialBoulevard East Residential Subdistrict Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay Carman Drive Subdistrict Radio Road Commercial infill Subdistrict RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDISTRICT Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Livingston Road / Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict EXHIBIT "A"EXHIBIT "A"PETITION PL20230008643 D R A FTSubject SiteSubject Site Conservation Designation Estates Designation Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Area Overlay North Belle Meade Overlay Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay NC Square Mixed Use Overlay Collier Boulevard / Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay OVERLAYS ANDSPECIAL FEATURES Area of Critical State Concern Overlay Airport Noise Area Overlay Incorporated Areas Coastal High Hazard Area US 41 East Overlay AGRICULTURAL / RURAL DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL/RURAL MIXED USE DISTRICT RURAL COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Basik Drive Storage Commercial Subdistrict RURAL FRINGEMIXED USE DISTRICT Neutral Lands Sending Lands Receiving Lands Rural Industrial District Rural Settlement Area District Tamiami Trail Greenway Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Page 638 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – Naples, FL South Real Estate Group December 2023 Page 639 of 702 Key Findings 4 East Trail Parcels Overview 6 Retail Supply vs Demand 23 Economic & Demographic Overview 29 Appendix 38 Page 640 of 702 3 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Background/Objectives, Key Contacts & Limiting Conditions BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES Hole Montes (“Client”) is working with a developer that is considering an investment opportunity in a mixed-use development on a +/- 24.41-acre property at the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail and Greenway Road in Naples Florida ("Subject"). Approximately 5.88 acres of the project will be designated for commercial use, and the Client is planning for a 64,000 square foot neighborhood retail center. The remaining 18.53 acres will be developed into a 320-unit multifamily community with approximately 20% designated as “affordable” units . The Client seeks an economic assessment of the current supply and demand metrics in the market to provide support for the rezoning application. Our role at Zonda is to provide you with data, analysis, and conclusions for this effort. Client is responsible for representations about the development plans, marketing expectations and for disclosure of any significant information that might affect the ultimate realization of the projected results. There will usually be differences between projected and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and the difference may be material. We have no responsibility to update our report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of our report. Payment of any and all of our fees and expenses is not in any way contingent upon any factor other than our providing services related to this report. LIMITING CONDITIONS The following key team members participated on this analysis: Tim Sullivan, Senior Managing Principal, oversees our Advisory practice. With over 40 years of experience, Mr. Sullivan is an expert in residential and mixed-use feasibility studies, strategic planning and product development, and regularly conducts market analyses around the United States and internationally. Susan Heffron, AICP, Vice President, managed the assignment. Ms. Heffron has over 20 years of real estate experience in the public and private sectors. She has worked in market research and analysis, entitlements, land use, and community planning, and process and program management for a wide variety of projects throughout the country, including serving as the Community Development and Code Enforcement Manager for the City of Concord, North Carolina, responsible for the coordination of the City’s affordable housing programs. Additional support was provided as needed. KEY CONTACTS Page 641 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 4 Key Findings Page 642 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 5 Zonda’s analysis indicates sufficient support for the rezoning change at the Subject for approximately 64,000 square feet of commercial space. This is based on several factors, including: In the immediate vicinity of the Subject, there are limited straight zoned parcels; most are incorporated into PUD developments. As there is limited existing zoning in the immediate area that could accommodate the proposed development without modifications to either zoning or existing PUDs, the proposed change is appropriate. Similarly, there are limited straight zoned, vacant, parcels throughout the whole of Collier County. Within the County, most vacant parcels are incorporated into PUD developments or are located in Northern Collier County or Immokalee. As such, the proposed change is appropriate. Over the next five years, the population is expected to grow by 9.71% while households are expected to grow by 11.11%. This increased population will support additional commercial development in the local market The median household income within the PMA is expected to grow an average of 4.08% per year to more than $81,000 by 2028. Additionally, households earning more than $100,000 are forecasted to experience the greatest growth, increasing by nearly 39% between 2023 and 2028. This will increase local spending power as well. Based on the expected population growth and current consumer spending, the projected retail spending growth for the PMA is nearly $576.5 million by 2028. All retail categories are expected to grow, including apparel and services, pets, and household furnishings and improvement. Even more significant is the growth in expected demand in food categories within a 15-minute drivetime of the Subject; food away from home is expected to grow by over $26.2 million while food consumed at home is forecasted to increase by more than $51 million over the next five years . Zonda also reviewed the retail establishments within the 15-minute drivetime that are able to service the current and future population. According to ESRI, 33.7% of all businesses are services, 10.2% operate in the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries, and 22.3% operate in the retail trade industry, as defined by SIC Codes. Just 0.4% of all businesses operate in the Apparel & Accessory Stores and 1.3% in the Furniture & Home Furnishings categories, which are two of the categories with the strongest current and future consumer spending outside of Food Spending categories. Further, Eating & Drinking Places are just 7.7% of businesses, and spending in that category is expected to grow by 34% over the next five years. The surrounding restaurants are located primarily in private country clubs and are not available to the general public, yet they are classified as a business. The current retail landscape is not sufficient to service current and projected retail demand in the Subject’s submarket. Summary of Key Findings Key Findings Page 643 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 6 East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Page 644 of 702 7 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group The East Trail Mixed Use Project PUDZ and East Trail Mixed Use Subdistrict GMPA will include five parcels totaling approximately 24.41 acres; nearly 5.88 acres of the property are contemplated for the Commercial use and are the Subject of this market study. The site is located on Tamiami Trail East, less than one -tenth of a mile northwest of Sandpiper Drive and the Shoppes at Fiddler’s Creek. The property is currently designated Agriculture per the County’s current zoning regulations and as an Urban Residential Subdistrict for future land use designation. Source: Rvi Planning Subject Location East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Tract “R” Tract “C” Page 645 of 702 8 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group The GMPA boundary for the Subject site is 24.41 acres. The proposed development will include a maximum of 64,000 square feet of commercial development on 6.43 acres (Tract “C”). The residential component of the project that is not contemplated in this analysis, will include 320 low-rise multifamily apartments on 18.53 acres (Tract “R”). Source: Client Subject Site Plan East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Page 646 of 702 9 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Surrounding land uses include a mix of residential, commercial, and vacant land as well as industrial land uses further to the southeast. Commercial uses in the area include two convenience stores with gas pumps, a Publix Grocery store, several small businesses, and an urgent care. Most adjoining PUDs and zoning classifications are compatible with the proposed land use at the Subject. Source: Google Earth, Collier County Subject Location East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Residential Residential Industrial Residential Commercial Vacant Land Church Page 647 of 702 10 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Collier County Zoning East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Zonda completed an audit of Collier County Zoning to identify if there was opportunity for the development of the Subject in the area that would not require zoning modifications. Much of Collier County is zoned open space or agricultural in the lesser developed regions of the County, with planned unit development zoning in the heavily populated areas between the coast and Interstate 75. Commercial zoning classifications, including ones that could support uses such as those proposed at the Subject, are primarily located along Tamiami Trail and in other small pockets between Tamiami Trail and I-75 As residential development spreads southeast from Naples along Tamiami Trail, the progression of supporting commercial land uses are expected and supportable. Source: Collier CountyPage 648 of 702 11 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Surrounding Zoning East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Zonda also completed an audit of Collier County Zoning in closer proximity to the Subject to identify if there was opportunity for the development of the Subject in the area that would not require zoning modifications. In the immediate vicinity of the Subject, much of the land on the northern side of Tamiami Trail is currently zoned agricultural while the southern side is primarily planned unit development. There are, however, nearby pockets of developed and undeveloped land with commercial designations. While one tract is currently vacant, other uses include two gas stations, one to the northwest and one to the southeast. Source: Collier CountyPage 649 of 702 12 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Collier County Land Uses East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Large swaths of Collier County have conservation designation land use. Other dominant future land use classifications in Collier County include urban residential, agricultural, residential estates, and agricultural/rural mixed-use districts. In 2021, there were only 766 vacant commercial properties in all of Collier County; this represents 0.3% of all parcels and less than 3.5% of all vacant parcels ; this represents a decline of more than 8% between 2017 and 2021. Source: The 2022 Collier County Economic, Demographic, and Community Profile https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/104355/638270794290670000Page 650 of 702 13 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group The future land use designation for the Subject is Urban Residential Subdistrict, while other designations in the immediate vicinity of the Subject are heavily focused in rural classifications. These areas also include both sending and receiving lands. Other land use designations in the area include mixed use activity center, industrial, urban residential fringe, and urban coastal fringe. Surrounding Land Uses East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Source: Collier County - https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/104614/638294977221570000 Estates Receiving Lands Sending Lands Urban Residential Subdistrict Conservation Urban Residential Subdistrict Page 651 of 702 14 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Future Land Use Approved Maps East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview The rezoning of the Subject parcel is also compatible with approved Future Land Use Approved Maps (FLUE). The “Greenway – Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict” is adjacent to the Subject along the southeastern edge of the parcel. This subdistrict was approved October 27, 2020, as Ordinance Number 2020-34. Source: Collier CountyPage 652 of 702 15 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Future Land Use Approved Maps East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview The Henderson Creek Mixed Use District is located approximately three miles to the west of the Subject. This subdistrict was approved February 10, 2015, as Ordinance Number 2015-13. This subdistrict is essentially complete ; the residential component of the District include approximately 102 duplex homes (204 total dwelling units) that were built in the late 2000’s . The commercial component includes a Wal - Mart Super Center and a Murphy USA Gas Station. The commercial component is significantly larger than what is proposed at the Subject and includes a gas station that is not included at the Site. The Subject will be complementary to this existing retail, offering residents alternatives to the large, big box, retailers . Source: Collier CountyPage 653 of 702 16 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group US 41 East Overlay East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview The Subject is located within the boundaries of the US 41 East Corridor Overlay Project, specifically within the boundaries of an identified community center. Per the Future Land Use Amendment Exhibit A, Community Centers are proposed to include moderate to low intensity mixed use development, commercial, residential development, hotel/motel at a maximum density of 26 units per acre, and certain economic development uses. These proposed uses align with the planned neighborhood center proposed for the site. The Subject will not include a gas service station, a use discouraged by the overlay, as there is one located adjacent to the site and a second located just west of Joseph Lane, near the end of the US 41 East Overlay. Source: Collier CountyPage 654 of 702 17 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Collier County Parcel Inventory East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Source: Collier County Comparably sized parcels in Collier County were analyzed to determine if there was an opportunity to accommodate the proposed uses at the Subject that would not require a rezoning or growth plan amendment. Based on Collier County’s Assessor Data, accessed on November 15, 2023, there are only two parcels within the County meet the following requirements to accommodate a neighborhood center: •The parcel must be sized between three and five acres •The parcel must be vacant but developable (i.e., not internal roadways, common open space, roadways, etc.) •The parcel must currently have a commercial land use code per the assessor’s records One of these parcels is a portion of the Hideway Beach Association (PID 50030080008) while the second (PID 001219640001) is owned by United Telephone Company of Florida and is not considered a viable option. Additionally, Zonda investigated any parcels that were less than five acres could be assembled to meet the above requirements based upon identical ownership between parcels; there were no opportunities available to create an assemblage that would accommodate the Subject. Due to this small sample size, Zonda also examined larger parcels that were between five and ten acres that met similar standards. Based on increasing the targeted parcel size, there are currently 22 parcels within the County meet the standards outlined above. Of these parcels, 12 are either now developed or are in the development process . Of the remaining ten parcels, most are located in North Collier County or in Immokalee. Additionally, nine of these parcels are located within existing PUDs that would require modifications for additional commercial square footage. Lastly, all parcels/tracts are located more than three miles from the Subject, the primary market area for the site. A detailed list of these parcels is on the following page. Page 655 of 702 18 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Collier County Parcel Inventory East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Source: Collier County Parcel ID Owner Zoning Future Land Use Address Undeveloped? Land Use Code Total Acres 37119840001 850.018 LAND TRUST CPUD Estates Desingation 77 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W Yes 10 5.15 37119880003 850.018 LAND TRUST CPUD Estates Desingation 73 WILSON BLVD N Yes 10 5.46 00439360308 11140 TAMIAMI LLC PUD Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Tamiami Trail Near Entrance Street Yes 10 5.8 82677000626 BCHD PARTNERS I LLC CPUD Estates Desingation Immokalee at Orangetree Yes 10 5.96 00122240007 D&K RESIDENTIAL C-4 Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict (I)Gross Ave. at N. 15th Street Yes 10 6.26 38170000009 JOSEPH A ROSIN REV TRUST CPUD Estates Desingation Golden Gate Parkway at Santa Barbara Road Yes 10 6.83 00296600007 EFE INC CPUD Residential Density Bands Radio Road at Radio Lane Yes 10 7.19 55425003255 DD CELESTE LLC PUD Urban Residential Subdistrict 7665 COLLIER BLVD Yes 10 9.14 00417400002 NAPLES COLLIER BLVD OWNER LLC MPUD Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Collier Blvd at A Better Way Yes 10 9.24 61841080008 NAPLES GROVES LOT 113 LLC RMF-6 Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Bayshore Drive at Storter Ave Yes 10 9.6 00398880204 BBP REALTY LLC PUD Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Collier Blvd. at Davis Blvd.Yes 10 9.69 41933240006 NAPLES SENIOR CNTR AT JFCS NC CFPUD Estates Desingation 6200 AUTUMN OAKS LN No 10 5 41931080006 NAPLES SENIOR CNTR AT JFCS INC CFPUD Estates Desingation 6200 AUTUMN OAKS LN No 10 5.15 06287440005 WSR-NB LLC City Incorporated Area 1568 GULF SHORE BLVD N No 10 5.25 06050000805 COMMONAGE CORP City Incorporated Area 850 GOODLETTE-FRANK RD N No 10 5.31 48586002102 MHP FL VII LLLP MPUD Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict 8369 RATTLESNAKE HAMM RD No 10 6.09 26300000755 FOD PERRY NAPLES LLC PUD Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict 805 WALKERBILT RD No 10 6.3 00166440504 SAM'S EAST INC C-4 Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict No 10 6.54 00076960006 OKEECHOBEE INN LTD C-3 Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 265 US Hwy 27 No 10 7.4 20763240006 NAPLES BAY PROPERTIES LLC City Incorporated Area 1500 5TH AVE S No 10 8.43 66070001303 PARKWAY PLAZA ASSOC LLC C-4 Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 4955 GOLDEN GATE PKWY No 10 8.58 70690000505 SOTO, IGNACIO G MPUD Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 1215 Roberts Ave W No 10 9.82 Page 656 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 19 Source: ESRI Traffic Count Map East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview The Subject parcels are located approximately 10 miles south of Interstate 75, along East Tamiami Trail . As the area to the southwest of the site is primarily preservation land, there is limited traffic data in the area . However, to the north of the Subject, both Tamiami Trail and Collier Boulevard have significant average daily traffic volumes. Connecting the area to I-75, Collier Boulevard north of Tamiami Trail averages more than 36,000 cars a day, while to the south, heading to Marco Island, there are between 24,000 and 38,000 cars per day. As Tamiami Trail heads northwest to Naples, approximately 11 miles away, traffic counts within three miles of the Site increase from 21,000 vehicles per day to more than 37,000. Subject Page 657 of 702 20 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Employment by Census Tract and Drive-Time Map East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview The Subject is located is within 45 minutes of many of Southwest Florida’s top employment destinations. Much of developed Collier County is within 45 minutes of the Subject, while areas such as Bonita Springs and Estero in Lee County are also within 45 minutes. Numerous healthcare employers including Lee Health Coconut Point, as well as most facilities in the NCH Healthcare System and Arthrex, are conveniently located within 15 to 30 minutes of the Site. Both Florida Gulf Coast University and Southwest Florida International Airport are 45 minutes from the Subject. This location bodes well for the success of the project. Source: ESRI; Zonda, FGCU Regional Economic Research Institute 30 Minutes 15 Minutes 45 Minutes East Naples Fort Myers Marco Island Big Cypress National Preserve Subject Naples Estero Bonita Springs Florida Panther National Wildlife Picayune Strand State Forest Rank Company Employees 1 Lee Health 14,028 2 Lee County School District 11,003 3 Publix Super Market 9,768 4 Lee County Local Government 9,142 5 NCH Healthcare System 8,159 6 Walmart 7,286 7 Collier County School District 5,756 8 Collier County Local Government 5,173 9 Arthrex 4,087 10 Marriott International, Inc.3,620 11 Bayfront Health 2,801 12 Charlotte County Local Government 2,614 13 McDonald's 2,613 14 Home Depot 2,497 15 Charlotte County School District 2,152 16 Winn-Dixie 1,899 17 Hope Hospice 1,838 18 Chico's Fas Inc.1,552 19 Florida Gulf Coast University 1,519 20 Bloomin' Brands, Inc.1,395 Top Southwest Florida Employers Page 658 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 21 Employment Concentration and Commute Patterns East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview In 2021, most residents (59.9%) within three miles of the Subject commuted less than 25 miles. While more than 11% traveled to Marco Island, more residents combined traveled to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers, The color-concentrated areas on the map to the right indicate the highest proportion of commuter destinations for residents. More than 4,800 individuals traveled outside of the radius for unemployment indicate the need for more employment opportunities in the area ; these individuals are primarily employed in “All Other Services” industry class, are between 30 to 54 years old, and earn a minimum of $1,251 per month. Employment sectors for inflow and outflow are heavily concentrated in Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Heath Care sectors ; combined these sectors account for 42.2% of all employment in the area . Source: Census Bureau Subject Page 659 of 702 22 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Regional Location East Trail Mixed Use Project Overview Source: Google Maps . Manatee ES and MS The Subject is located on Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail), less than 3.5 miles southeast of Collier Boulevard, allowing for easy access to I-75, and to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers to the north, and Marco Island to the south. The intersection of Tamiami Trail and Collier Boulevard offers a number of retail opportunities while a Publix grocery store and pharmacy, several local retail establishments, and an urgent care facility are located in the Shoppes at Fiddle Creek. With more than 1,300 homes planned for Fiddler’s Creek in addition to the nearly 1,500 homes currently occupied, additional retail, like that proposed at the Subject, will be necessary to support these households. As proposed, the Subject is compatible with, and complementary to, these uses and will meet future demand. Page 660 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 23 Retail Supply vs. Demand Page 661 of 702 24 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Methodology Retail Supply vs. Demand Zonda completed a multi-phased analysis to determine the demand for additional retail space within the Subject’s submarket. The proposed development will include a maximum of 64,000 square feet of retail space. Per the International Council of Shopping Centers, a 30,000 to 125,000 square foot center falls under the “Neighborhood Center” category. According to ICSC, a Neighborhood Center is an “This center is designed to provide convenience shopping for the day-to-day needs of consumers in the immediate neighborhood. According to ICSC's SCORE publication, roughly half of these centers are anchored by a supermarket, while about a third have a drugstore anchor. These anchors are supported by stores offering pharmaceuticals and health- related products, sundries, snacks and personal services. A neighborhood center is usually configured as a straight-line strip with no enclosed walkway or mall area, although a canopy may connect the storefronts.” The typical trade area size is three miles, per ICSC: however, Zonda utilized a 15-minute drive time boundary to define the target market area for the Subject. Zonda’s retail analysis was completed as follows: Reconciled retail demand with existing and planned supply to determine if existing entitlements and projects are sufficient to meet the projected population growth within the Subject’s primary trade area. Performed a retail gap analysis based on today’s population (2023) and expected population over the next five (2028) years. Determine projected population growth within a three-mile radius of the Subject per ESRI data. Page 662 of 702 25 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Primary Market Area Retail Supply vs. Demand To complete a retail analysis for the Subject, Zonda determined the Primary Market Area (PMA) as a 15-minute drivetime from the Subject. Over the next five years, the population is expected to grow by 9.71% while households are expected to grow by 11.11%. This increased population will support additional commercial development in the local market. The median household income within the PMA is expected to grow an average of 4.08% per year to more than $81,000 by 2028. Additionally, households earning more than $100,000 are forecasted to experience the greatest growth, increasing by nearly 39% between 2023 and 2028. This will increase local spending power as well. It is important to note that these population growth forecasts do not account for any changes in future land use (additional residential housing) and are based on annual census community surveys only. Given the growth trajectory in Collier County to the east, it is likely that additional residential developments will continue along Tamiami Trail East, thus increasing the population greater than projected. Primary Market Area (PMA) Source: ESRI 15 Minutes Primary Market Area (2028 Est.) Population: 51,457 Households: 23,165 Avg. HH Size: 2.18 Median HH Income: $81,508 Per Capita Income: $59,982 Primary Market Area (2023) Population: 46,904 Households: 20,849 Avg. HH Size: 2.20 Median HH Income: $67,697 Per Capita Income: $48,808 Page 663 of 702 26 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Retail Demand Retail Supply vs. Demand Based on the expected population growth and current consumer spending, the projected retail spending growth for the PMA is nearly $576.5 million by 2028. All retail categories are expected to grow, including apparel and services, pets, and household furnishings and improvement. Even more significant is the growth in expected demand in food categories within a 15-minute drivetime of the Subject; food away from home (restaurants, fast food, fast casual establishments, etc.) is expected to grow by over $26.2 million but food consumed at home is forecasted to increase by more than $51 million over the next five years. Average consumer spending by households in these categories is expected to increase approximately $3,600 between 2023 and 2028. For 2023, the PMA needed an additional 148,866 square feet of retail space to meet consumer spending demands. An additional 187,134 square feet of retail space will be required to address the needs of households within the 15-minute drivetime of the Subject. The 64,000 maximum square footage proposed for the Site will address this gap. Source: ESRI, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditures Surveys Minimum Store Size 2023 Consumer Spending 2023 Consumer Spending by Household 2023 Additional Square Feet Needed 2028 Forecasted Demand 2028 Forecasted Demand by Household 2028 Additional Square Feet Needed Projected Spending Growth Apparel and Services < 10,000 square feet $41,779,923 $2,004 66,011 $56,308,153 $2,431 81,810 $14,528,230 Computer < 1,000 square feet $5,972,115 $286 0 $8,066,239 $348 87 $2,094,124 Pets < 1,000 square feet $25,398,526 $1,218 1,317 $33,935,140 $1,465 1,745 $8,536,614 Toys/Games/Crafts/Hobbies < 2,500 square feet $3,447,979 $165 7,185 $4,631,499 $200 9,015 $1,183,520 Household Furnishings and Equipment < 10,000 square feet $40,516,024 $1,943 18,916 $54,509,408 $2,353 27,176 $13,993,384 Personal Care Products < 5,000 square feet $11,426,671 $548 16,470 $15,402,023 $665 18,378 $3,975,352 Retail Spending $128,541,238 $6,165 109,899 $172,852,462 $7,462 138,211 $44,311,224 Food at Home < 2,500 squaree feet $150,026,348 $7,196 16,078 $202,013,511 $8,721 17,673 $51,987,163 Food Away from Home < 5,000 square feet $75,427,266 $3,618 22,889 $101,636,413 $4,387 31,250 $26,209,147 Food Spending $225,453,614 $10,814 38,967 $303,649,924 $13,108 48,923 $78,196,310 Totals $353,994,852 $16,979 148,866 $476,502,386 $20,570 187,134 $122,507,534 Retail Demand Page 664 of 702 27 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Retail Supply Retail Supply vs. Demand Zonda also reviewed the retail establishments within the 15-minute drivetime that are able to service the current and future population. According to ESRI, 33.7% of all businesses are services, 10.2% operate in the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries, and 22.3% operate in the retail trade industry, as defined by SIC Codes. Just 0.4% of all businesses operate in the Apparel & Accessory Stores and 1.3% in the Furniture & Home Furnishings categories, which are two of the categories with the strongest current and future consumer spending outside of Food Spending categories. Further, Eating & Drinking Places are just 7.7% of businesses, and spending in that category is expected to grow by 34% over the next five years. The surrounding restaurants are located primarily in private country clubs and are not available to the general public, yet they are classified as a business. The current retail landscape is not sufficient to service current and projected retail demand in the Subject’s submarket. Source: ESRI, Data Axel, Inc. Category Number of Businesses Percent Number of Employees Percent Home Improvement 18 1.6%226 1.8% General Merchandise Stores 11 1.0%554 4.3% Food Stores 41 3.7%1,143 8.9% Auto Dealers & Gas Stations 18 1.6%91 0.7% Apparel & Accessory Stores 5 0.4%21 0.2% Furniture & Home Furnishings 15 1.3%46 0.4% Eating & Drinking Places 86 7.7%1,323 10.3% Miscellaneous Retail 55 4.9%465 3.6% Retail Trade Summary 249 22.2%3,869 30.2% Page 665 of 702 28 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Approved Undeveloped Commercial Space in PMA Retail Analysis Zonda reviewed vacant commercial inventory within a 15-minute drivetime of the Subject. The only vacant commercial is at the Publix- anchored Shoppes at Fiddler ’s Creek plaza. There are three outparcels available for development, which could be food service or a small strip center. There is also an 11.69-acre parcel that will likely be developed into a neighborhood center that draws traffic from the neighboring Publix (thus, an expansion of the current developed Publix plaza). Additionally, there is at least one pending PUDZ/GMPA that is currently pending within the vicinity of the Subject. Per Collier County records, PL20230007470 and PL20230007471, a PUDZ and GMPA respectively, will include a maximum of 30,000 square feet of retail space with no grocery component. Per the International Council of Shopping Centers, a 30,000 square foot center falls under the “Strip/Convenience” center category. The typical trade area size is less than a mile, per ICSC; this project is more than a mile from the Subject. While the future development of this commercial will come with additional household growth to the submarket, it is highly unlikely to be sufficient for the expected demand in the next five years (and beyond). The 64,000 square feet of retail space proposed at the Subject is supportable given the expected population growth and existing and approved commercial space in the defined trade area . Source: Collier County Parcel Acreage Approved SF DevelopedRemaining PUD Owner Land Use Code Retail Use 32433201266 1.5 Marco Shores / Fiddler's Creek FC Oyster Harbor LLC 10 - Vacant Commercial Outparcel 32433201282 1.7 Marco Shores / Fiddler's Creek FC Oyster Harbor LLC 10 - Vacant Commercial Outparcel 32433201305 1.6 Marco Shores / Fiddler's Creek FC Oyster Harbor LLC 10 - Vacant Commercial Outparcel 32433201305 11.69 Marco Shores / Fiddler's Creek FCC Preserve 10 - Vacant Commercial Neighborhood Center Total 16.49 325,000 88,216 236,784 325,000 88,216 236,784 Retail Conclusion While the future development of this commercial will come with additional household growth to the submarket, it is highly unlikely to be sufficient for the expected demand in the next five (and beyond). The 64,000 square feet of retail space proposed at the Subject is supportable given the expected population growth and existing and approved commercial space in the defined trade area . Page 666 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 29 Economic & Demographic Overview Page 667 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 30 Population and Household Comparison Economic & Demographic Overview The 2023 estimated population of Collier County was 396,840 people, a 2.5% increase over 2022; this population accounts for 167,737 households, an increase of 2.8%. Over the next five years, household formation is expected to slightly outpace population growth at an estimated 0.9% annual household growth. Population in the County is expected to increase 0.7% over this same time. A significant portion of this growth is driven by in-migration of older households that are retiring to the area; more information on this trend is highlighted on the next page. Source: ESRI Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Short Here 396,840 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 Collier County Total Population (2023) 167,737 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 Collier County Total Households (2023) 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Collier County Annual Population Change (2023 -2028) Annual Change % Annual Growth 0.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Collier County Annual Household Change (2023 -2028) Annual Change % Annual Growth Page 668 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 31 Age Comparison Economic & Demographic Overview Retirees make up the largest population segment in Collier County, followed by children and pre-retirees between 55 to 64; all other age cohorts each represent approximately 10% of the local population. Between 2023 and 2028, retirees, followed by individuals aged 35- to 44-years old, are forecasted to experience the greatest increases in the County, increasing 7.6% and 7.0% respectively. The growth in younger populations highlight the need for retailers that meet the needs to these two diverse segments. Source: ESRI Paste Chart Long Here Paste Chart Long Here 14.4%9.3%10.1%10.2%10.3%13.7%32.0%0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Less than 15 (Children) 15 to 24 (Children/ Students) 25 to 34 (Renters/ 1st Time) 35 to 44 (1st Time) 45 to 54 (Move-Up) 55 to 64 (Move-Up/ Down) 65 Plus (Move-Down/ Lifestyle) Population by Age (2023) Collier County 1.9%0.1%-2.8%7.0%-0.6%-6.0%7.6%-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% Less than 15 (Children) 15 to 24 (Children/ Students) 25 to 34 (Renters/ 1st Time) 35 to 44 (1st Time) 45 to 54 (Move-Up) 55 to 64 (Move-Up/ Down) 65 Plus (Move-Down/ Lifestyle) Change in Population by Age (2023 to 2028) Collier County Page 669 of 702 32 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Income and Net Worth Economic & Demographic Overview The highest median household income and net worth in Southwest Florida is in Collier County; the County also represents one of the most affluent areas in the entire state of Florida. The median household income in Collier County in 2023 was approximately $13,000 more than the state of Florida. It is also $12,000 more than neighboring Lee County and $3,000 more than Monroe County. The older demographic, combined with higher earning potential workers as well as residents’ accumulated wealth, resulted in a median net worth in the County that was $138,000 more than Monroe County as well as Florida as a whole and approximately $90,000 more than Lee County. Over the next five years, income is projected to increase for all households earning more than $75,000, with the most notable increases in households earning between $150,000 and $199,999. Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Long Here $78K $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Collier County HH. Income (2023) $293K $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 Collier County Net Worth (2022) -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or Greater Change in Household Income (2023 to 2028) Collier County Source: ESRIPage 670 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 33 Annual Employment Growth vs. Unemployment – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview Following the COVID-19 pandemic, employment in Collier County been robust, with back-to-back years of record job growth; the County added more than 17,000 jobs in two years. After unemployment spiked in 2020 at 7.4%, rapid job recovery resulted in the area’s unemployment rate normalizing below 4%. Slowing job growth is expected to continue through 2027, with the area’s unemployment rate remaining below 4%. Even as a destination for retirees, employment growth and a stable, low unemployment rate are generally good indicators of the overall strength of the economy in Collier County. 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.0% 12.0% 13.0% 14.0% -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Unemployment RateAnnual Non-Farm Employment GrowthPrior Year Change Unemployment RateSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Non-Farm Employment 123,142 129,725 135,942 142,508 145,483 150,825 155,408 148,317 156,367 165,375 166,538 169,685 171,946 174,197 176,319 Prior Year Change 4,600 6,583 6,217 6,567 2,975 5,342 4,583 (7,092)8,050 9,008 1,163 3,147 2,260 2,252 2,122 Annual % Change 3.9%5.3%4.8%4.8%2.1%3.7%3.0%-4.6%5.4%5.8%0.7%1.9%1.3%1.3%1.2% Unemployment Rate 7.4%6.2%5.3%4.7%4.2%3.6%3.2%7.4%3.7%2.8%2.7%3.5%3.9%3.9%3.9% Page 671 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 34 L12M Job Growth by Sector – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview Job growth in Collier County was led by Education & Health Services, while Leisure & Hospitality and Trade, Transportation and Utilities, as well as the three high earning employment segments, Financial Activities, Information, and Professional & Business services lost more than 820 positions over the past twelve months. Even with these losses, related in part to the lingering impacts of Hurricane Ian, the Leisure & Hospitality sector remains the second largest sector in the Naples MSA, driven by the numerous restaurants, resorts, golf courses, and tourist destinations in the area. -153 -62 -398 145 873 118 -149 209 5 -61 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Financial Activities Information Professional & Business Services Construction & Mining Education & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Manufacturing Other Services Trade, Transp. and UtilitiesAnnual Non-Farm Employment GrowthSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Category Financial Activities Information Professional & Business Services Construction & Mining Education & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Manufacturing Other Services Trade, Transp. and Utilities Current Month (Oct-2023)10,025 1,292 20,466 19,067 26,275 13,977 28,714 5,705 9,443 31,108 Current Month (Oct-2022)10,178 1,355 20,864 18,922 25,403 13,859 28,863 5,496 9,438 31,169 12-Month Change -153 -62 -398 145 873 118 -149 209 5 -61 Page 672 of 702 35 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Historical Income Growth – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview Median income in Collier County has generally well outpaced the median income for the United States as a whole; in 2022, however, income in these two geographies were the closest they had been in nearly a decade. This equalization was due to slower income growth in the County in 2020, a decline in median household income in Collier County that was unmatched by the nation as a whole in 2021, and little to no growth in 2022. Moody’s forecasts that median income in Collier County will continue to increase through 2027, remaining approximately $4,000 higher the median income for the United States. $60,000 $65,000 $70,000 $75,000 $80,000 $85,000 $90,000 -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Median IncomeAnnual Change in Median IncomeAnnual % Change Median Income (Real)US Median Income Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Median Income (Real)$71,758 $72,930 $73,034 $73,712 $74,494 $76,531 $81,950 $82,158 $80,782 $80,815 $82,634 $83,763 $84,214 $85,176 $85,900 Annual % Change 1.9%1.6%0.1%0.9%1.1%2.7%7.1%0.3%-1.7%0.0%2.3%1.4%0.5%1.1%0.8% Median Income - United States $65,200 $65,216 $65,583 $65,634 $66,814 $66,066 $70,317 $70,897 $71,164 $74,755 $78,663 $79,934 $80,660 $81,411 $82,199 Annual % Change -0.6%0.0%0.6%0.1%1.8%-1.1%6.4%0.8%0.4%5.0%5.2%1.6%0.9%0.9%1.0% Page 673 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 36 Following near historic permit activity in 2021, total building permits in Collier County declined in 2022 and are forecasted to decline again in 2023 to below historic average. Construction activity in Collier County is forecasted to rebound, with an average 6,200 permits issued per year between 2024 and 2027. Historically, there have been more single-family detached building permits issued compared to multifamily building permits (67% compared to 33%) with projections indicating a slight shift toward single family construction through 2027 (72% single family permits versus 28% multifamily permits). Residential Permit Issuances – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027FResidential Building PermitsSFD Building Permits MF Building Permits Historical AverageSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Total Building Permits 2,678 3,610 4,060 3,829 4,194 4,386 3,991 4,473 6,766 5,517 3,922 5,603 6,309 6,587 6,318 Annual % Change 66.1%34.8%12.5%-5.7%9.5%4.6%-9.0%12.1%51.3%-18.5%-28.9%42.8%12.6%4.4%-4.1% SFD Building Permits 1,760 2,477 3,078 2,892 2,930 3,253 3,300 3,256 4,380 3,519 3,066 3,560 4,281 4,779 4,822 Annual % Change 35.8%40.7%24.3%-6.0%1.3%11.0%1.4%-1.3%34.5%-19.7%-12.9%16.1%20.3%11.6%0.9% MF Building Permits 918 1,133 982 937 1,264 1,133 691 1,217 2,386 1,998 856 2,043 2,028 1,808 1,496 Annual % Change 190.5%23.4%-13.3%-4.6%34.9%-10.4%-39.0%76.1%96.1%-16.3%-57.1%138.5%-0.7%-10.9%-17.2% Page 674 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 37 Home affordability in Collier County declined significantly in 2022 due to rising prices and rising interest rates ; it is projected to fall again in 2023 to near record low affordability. Moody’s forecasts the Affordability Index to rise slowly through 2027. Should it continue as forecasted, this trend will represent one of the longest periods of unaffordability in the area . Affordability – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview 77 72 58 48 54 90 151 137 137 140 114 93 90 93 92 90 107 103 86 56 47 49 55 59 61 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027FAffordability IndexSource: Moody's Analytics; National Association of Realtors (NAR) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Affordability Index 114.4 93.5 89.9 93.0 92.3 90.2 107.0 103.2 86.1 56.0 47.1 48.8 54.8 58.9 61.1 Page 675 of 702 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group 38 Appendix Page 676 of 702 39 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group ICSC Shopping Center Definitions Appendix Source: ICSCPage 677 of 702 40 East Trail Mixed Use Project: Commercial Demand Analysis – South Real Estate Group Retail Store Minimum Sizes Appendix Category Minimum Square Footage Type New car dealers 25,000-50,000sf Regional Used car dealers 25,000-50,000sf Regional Recreational vehicle dealers 10,000-25,000sf Regional/Light Ind. Family clothing stores 10,000-30,000sf Reg/Twn Ctr Pharmacies and drug stores 10,000-15,000sf Neighborhood Nursery, garden center, and farm supply stores 5,000-10,000sf Neighborhood Automotive parts and accessories stores 5,000-10,000sf Neighborhood Paint and wallpaper stores < 10,000sf Rg/Tn/Nb Women's clothing stores < 10,000sf Rg/Tn/Nb Shoe stores < 5,000sf Rg/Tn/Nb Experiencial Retail < 10,000sf Town/Neighbor Health and personal care stores < 5,000sf Town/Neighbor Clothing accessories stores < 2,500 Town/Neighbor Jewelry stores < 2,500 Town/Neighbor Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores < 2,500 Town/Neighbor Florists < 1,000 Town/Neighbor Luggage and leather goods stores < 1,000 Town/Neighbor Gift, novelty, and souvenir stores < 1,000 Town/Neighbor Book stores < 1,000 Town/Neighbor News dealers and newsstands < 1,000 Town/Neighbor Limited-service restaurants < 5,000sf Rg/Tn/Nb Coffee shops < 2,500sf Rg/Tn/Nb Drinking places < 2,500sf Town/Neighbor Ice cream, soft serve & fzn ygrt < 2,500sf Rg/Tn/Nb Bagel/Bakery/Doughnut Shop < 2,500sf Town/Neighbor Bagel shops < 2,500sf Town/Neighbor Beer, wine, and liquor stores < 2,500sf Town/Neighbor Gasoline stations w/ Convenience 2,500-5,000sf Rg/Tn/Nb Tire dealers 2,500-5,000sf Town/Neighbor Service Retailers < 2,500sf T/N/Bus. Food service contractors < 2,500sf Light Ind. Caterers < 2,500sf Bus.Park Source: Claritas; Zonda Potential Food Services Services Potential Retail Stores Dealerships Potential Anchors or Big Box Retailers Neighborhood Store Potential Specialty Stores Page 678 of 702 Thank you! Zonda 4000MacArthur Boulevard, Site 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (877) 966-3210 Page 679 of 702 Page 680 of 702 Page 681 of 702 Page 682 of 702 Page 683 of 702 Page 684 of 702 Page 685 of 702 Page 686 of 702 Page 687 of 702 Page 688 of 702 Page 689 of 702 Page 690 of 702 Page 691 of 702 Page 692 of 702 Page 693 of 702 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 December 19, 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 AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 300 MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE, C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES. [PL20230008643] AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITH THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITHIN THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO BE KNOWN AS TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 300 MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE, C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20230008640] Page 694 of 702 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 with the Zoning Division, prior to December 19, 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. Page 695 of 702 Collier County Planning Commission Joseph K. Schmitt, Chairman Page 696 of 702 See reverse for more information PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE East Trail Mixed Use Project (Small Scale GMPA) & (PUDZ) Petition Type: Growth Management Amendment Plan & Planned Unit Development Rezone Petition No.: PL20230008643 & PL20230008640 Planner Name: Parker Klopf & Sean Sammon Phone: (239) 252-2471 & (239) 252-8422 Collier County Planning Commission: Date: 12/19/2024 Time: 09:00 AM Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Building F, Naples, FL 34112 This is to advise you of an upcoming public hearing because you may have interest in the proceedings, or you own property located near the vicinity of the following property. For more information, or to register to participate remotely: https://bit.ly/Public__Hearings *Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For difficulties registering please call Ailyn Padron at (239) 252-5187 or email to ailyn.padron@CollierCountyFL.Gov. Meeting information: Individual speakers may be limited to five (5) minutes on any item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the agenda packets must submit materials a minimum of ten (10) days prior to the respective public hearing, to the county staff member noted above. All material used in presentations before the Collier County Planning Commission will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and 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. 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 Department, 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. This petition and other pertinent information related to this petition is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Community Development Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Page 697 of 702 Collier County Planning Commission to consider the following: 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 AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 300 MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE, C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES. [PL20230008643] AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITH THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT PARTLY WITHIN THE AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY TO BE KNOWN AS TAMIAMI TRAIL GREENWAY ROAD MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 300 MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UP TO 64,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE, C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 441 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 24.41± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20230008640] Page 698 of 702 Page 699 of 702 Page 700 of 702 Page 701 of 702 Page 702 of 702