Loading...
CCPC Backup 09/16/2010 Rccpc REGULAR MEETING BACKUP DOCUMENTS SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 COURT REPORTER AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2010, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS — September 14, 2010 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: PUDZ - 2008 -AR -14048 Robert E. Williams, Trustee of the Robert E. Williams Trust dated October 5, 2004, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a rezoning from Commercial (C -2) and Mobile Home (MH) zoning districts with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Neutral Lands overlay to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district, with removal of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Neutral Lands overlay, for a project to be known as Corkscrew Commercial Center CPUD. The rezoning petition allows for a maximum 60,000 square feet of commercial, retail, office, church and school uses. The subject property consists of 8 +/- acres which is located at the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and Platt Road in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach] 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DOA- PL2010 -843 850 NWN, LLC, CG II, LLC & CityGate Development Inc., represented by Josh Fruth of Davidson Engineering Inc., requesting an amendment to the City Gate DRI Development Order to conform to the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan and the City Gate Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit. The amendment is to the City Gate DRI Development Order 90 -4 [Collier County Resolution # 90 -431], Section 4 entitled Vegetation and Wildlife /Wetlands, in particular paragraph c entitled Off -site Mitigation and paragraph d entitled Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management plan. This project is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and City Gate Boulevard North in Section 35, Township 49 East, Range 26 South, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem] B. PUDA- PL2010 -845 850 NWN, LLC, CG 11, LLC & CityGate Development LLC, represented by Josh Fruth of Davidson Engineering Inc., are requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the City Gate Commerce Center PUD. This amendment seeks to amend Ordinance No. 88 -93 to remove Section VII, entitled Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan, to recognize that said Management Plan has been revised to conform to the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan and the City Gate Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit. The PUD, consisting of 287 t acres, is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and City Gate Boulevard North in Section 35, Township 49 East, Range 26 South, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Dcsetem] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT H EM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 9/7/10 CCPC Agenda /Ray Bellows /jmp AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2010, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS — Seplemher 14, 2010 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: PUDZ- 2008 -AR -14048 Robert E. Williams, Trustee of the Robert E. Williams Trust dated October 5, 2004, represented by D. Wayne Arnold AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich of Coleman, ovanovY ich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a rezoning from Commercial ) and Mobile Home (MH) zoning districts with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Neutral Lands overlay to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district, with removal of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Neutral Lands overlay, for a project to be known as Corkscrew Commercial Center CRUD. The rezoning petition allows for a maximum 60,000 square feet of commercial, retail, office, church and school uses. The subject property consists of 8 +/- acres which is located at the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and Platt Road in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach] 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DOA- PL2010 -843 850 NWN, LLC, CG II, LLC & CityGate Development Inc., represented by Josh Froth of Davidson Engineering Inc., requesting an amendment to the City Gate DRI Development Order to conform to the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan and the City Gate Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit. The amendment is to the City rate DRI De-v—e�lopinent Order 90 -4 [Collier County Resolution # 90 -431], Section 4 entitled Vegetation and Wildlife /Wetlands, in particular paragraph c entitled Off -site Mitigation and paragraph d entitled Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management plan. This project is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and City Gate Boulevard North in Section 35, Township 49 East, Range 26 South, Collier County, Florida. [Coor. mator. Kay Dese em B. PUDA- PL2010 -845 850 NWN, LLC, CG II, LLC & CityGate Development LLC, represented by Josh Froth of Davidson Engineering Inc., are requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the City Gate Commerce Center PUD. This amendment seeks to amend Ordinance No. 88 -93 to remove Section VII, entitled Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan, to recognize that said Management Plan has been revised to conform to the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan and the City Gate Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit. The PUD, consisting of 287 f acres, is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and City Gate Boulevard North in Section 35, Township 49 East, Range 26 South, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 9/7/10 CCPC Agenda /Ray Bellows /imp 2 Naples Daily News • Sunday, August 29,2010 9 23A PUBLIC NOTICE Y U WAIL. A v 1. ll.l:, 1 V LL1V — . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commis- sion (CCPC) at 8.30 A.M., Thursday. September 16, 2010, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider: Petition: DOA-P!1_20110-843. 850 NWN, LLC, CG II, LLC & CityGate Development Inc., represented by Josh Fruth of Davidson Engineering Inc., requesting an amendment to the City Gate DRI Devel- opment Order to conform to the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan and the City Gate Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit. The amendment is to the City Gate DRI Development Order 90 -4 [Collier County Resolution # 90 -4311, Section 4 entitled Vegetation and Wildlife/Wetlands, in particular paragraph c entitled Off -site Mitigation and paragraph d entitled Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management plan. This project is located at the,intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and City Gate Boulevard North in Section 35, Township 49 East, Range 26 South, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner) All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 min- utes on any item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons who have been au- thorized to represent a group or organization should limit their presentation to ten minutes. 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. Written comments must GOLDEN GATE be filed with the Department of PARKWAY Zoning and Land Development ASHLEY'S (C.R. 886) SERVICE Review prior to September 16, STAl10N GOLDEN GATE ESTATES Q GOLDEN j UNIT 26 zs 2010, in order to be consid- GATE m ss ered at the public hearing. All CITY w PROJECT materials used in presentation LOCATION before the CCPC will become GOLDEN GATE a permanent part of the record MAGNOLIA COMMERCE POND PARK and will be available for presen- (6) ITYGATE COLLIER BLVD. (DRI) tation to the Board of County MIXED COMM USE COMMERCE 35 ,� Commissioners, if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceea(ngs pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes all testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County, Florida Mark P. Strain, Chairman August 29.2010 No. 231 1 7 2765 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 8.30 A.M., Thursday September 16, 2010, in the Board of County Commissioners Meet- ing Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider: Petition: PUDA- PL2010- 845, 850 NWN, LLC, CG II, LLC & CityGate Development Inc., represented by Josh Fruth of Davidson Engineering Inc., are requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit De- velopment (PUD) for the City Gate Commerce Center, PUD. This amendment seeks to amend Ordi- nance No. 88 -93 to remove Section VII, entitled Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan, to recognize that said Management Plan has been revised to conform to the City Gate Habitat Conser- vation Plan and the City gate Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit. The PUD, consisting of 287 ± acres, is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and City Gate Boulevard in Section 35, Township 49 East, Range 26 South, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner) All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized to represent a group or organization should limit their presentation to ten minutes. 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. Written comments must be GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SERVICES (C.R. 886) STATION GOLDEN GATE „ o Q GOLDEN GATE ESTATES w UNIT 28 ; 26 25 P CITY w GOLDEN GATE MAGNOLIA POND COMMERCE (S) PARK I A COWER BLVD. (DRI) MIXED usE COMMERCE 35 CENTER 36 SHERWO D 34 x MFRS KHIT LAKE PARK p-KS INDUSTRIAL IAL PARK �AAEaNG m <„ atN I -0 6 "AWCAT (S.R. 84) RD a Api>pY TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL PLAZA DRI gLLIGATOR ALLEY filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review prior to September 16, 2010, in order to be considered at the public hearing. All mate- rials used in presentation before the CCPC will become a perma- nent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commis- sioners, if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings per- taining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes all testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County, Florida Mark P, Strain, Chairman No 231172763 Auaust 29. 2010 CO Y County AGENDA ITEM 9 -A TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 SUBJECT: DOA- PL2010 -843, CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER DRI (COMPANION TO PUDA- PL2010 -845) PROPERTY OWNER &APPLICANT /AGENTS: Owner /Applicant 850 NWN, LLC, CB II, LLC & City Gate Development, LLC 159 Main Street, Suite 500 Akron, OH 44309 REOUESTED ACTION: Agent: Josh Fruth, Project Manager Davidson Engineering, Inc. 3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34105 The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the City Gate Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order (DO) so that document will match the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan and the City Gate Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit. The amendment is to the City Gate DRI Development Order 88 -2 [Collier County Resolution # 88 -309, as amended], Section 4 entitled Vegetation and Wildlife /Wetlands, in particular paragraph c entitled Off -site Mitigation and paragraph d entitled Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 287 t acres, is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and City Gate Boulevard North in Section 35, Township 49 East, Range 26 South, Collier County, Florida. (See illustration on the following page). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant seeks to amend Section 4 in the City Gate DRI DO entitled Vegetation and Wildlife/Wetlands, specifically paragraph c entitled Off-site Mitigation and paragraph d entitled Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 1 of 5 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 LOCATION MAP 3 h PETITION " DOA -PL- 2010 -843 ZONING MAP (C.R. eBBI BROOKS VhMTE BOULEVARD VILLAGE )) 16 15 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE GOLDEN DATE ESTATES VNIT 27 13 18 17 ESTATES UNIT 28 14 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT !4 SUNGAIE CENTER UNIT 15 UNIT 164 CHESHIRE ARMB GREEN BOULEVARD I APTS GREEN BLVD. PLO 9 GREEN ELYD. PUD � p m 20 21 22 $ 23 24 8 GOLDEN GALE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE UNIT 195 N OA GULOE TS OO� U POUNDERS NLLAS PLAZA GOLDEN GATE ESTATES _ p!E PARKWAY ASHLEYS SERMCE STATION UNIT 28 PROMENADE 4, .(c i U JACARANDA �¢1 CITY CENTER 27 25 25 28 25 FP01AZAERS PROJECT PARKWAY PL"C` (B) LOCATION PARKWAY CENTER (S) BERKSHIRE MAGNOIA COLON GATE CdAMERCE TA KEHUM XE LARES (S) PARK (ORQ COLLIER BLVD. COMMERCE CENTER RI) 35 31 32 INTERSTATE-75 33 SHER 34 WHITE LAKE BERKSHIRE LAKES GREEN PARK NDUSTM L PARK (DRI) (EDRNOH sARPONO 3� F]s 9 'AMY TOLL DATE ALLIGATOR ALLEY (S.R. 84) RANG ROAD (C.R. am ul COMMERCIAL PLAZA DRIP -]5 /COLLIER TOIL EAST U CO MERCIAL PLAZA PLAZA dll j WESTPORT DOMLIERPE CENTER R.V. LAKES CENTER GE 4 6� 3 2 FOREST GLEN m OT NAPLES 6 5 BEMSRI ESTATE Of' '� CEDAR g HAMMOCK a r / NAPLES HERITAGE . PROPERLY GOLF AND COUNTRY GRUB HERITAGE fA SAN TAOE RESERVE D AND MARND TOLL- -RATTLESNAKE CONNTRY CLUB �PCOLFNCWBN� it 2 7 B G 1D I 1 Q km Ih HONES OF ISLANOIA 1 LASIP CONSERVATION AREA SHADOW I IERFOR WOOD ESTATES ipiSf (5) ASSEMBLY TOLL - RATTLE 1 NAPLEB LANES 11RT5TIIIES I COUNTRY CLUB 13 18 17 14 18 15 1 WOM.GTON pppp TR CENTER N MANDALAY MWULLEN XANMOCK PARK COMMERCE CENTRE (p) LOCATION MAP 3 h PETITION " DOA -PL- 2010 -843 ZONING MAP The original City Gate DRI DO was approved in 1988, with the provisions to be amended added in an amendment approved in 1990. A 2000 amendment recognized that mitigation and management strategies would evolve and change by providing that before development could proceed in the areas of the DRI designated as a temporary Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) preserves, the RCW management plan must be "refreshed ". These changed mitigation and management strategies are reflected in the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) approved by and the City Gate Federal Fish & Wildlife Permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2009. Accordingly, City Gate must amend the DRI DO to reflect the latest listed species mitigation strategies and management methods required by the HCP and Permit. Several changes to the original DRI DO have occurred. These are as follows: 1. The original DRI DO was adopted on December 13, 1988 via DRI DO 88 -2. That DO was appealed by Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) with the appeal being resolved on October 29, 1990. 2. On February 21, 1995, an amendment was approved in DRI DO 95 -2 to extend the mandatory development date to October 28, 2000. 3. DRI DO 2000 -02 was adopted on May 23, 2000 to further extend the DRI DO until October 27, 2014. That DO contained the following statement: The Citvgate project contains 209 acres of building sites exclusive of streets lakes, and other non buildini site areas Until the wetland jurisdiction lines and the Red- CockWcd Woodpecker Management Flan have been refreshed, arry neecsso y Master Plan and/or PUD modifications matte a complete new IB p=ared, and a new D(3A approved development, i.e., building permit issuance, shall be limited to 15% of the Project site acres which is 31.35 site acres The 31 35 wro Cn,Yimr,tn development area shall be located west of the FPL easement. except for the area east of the FPL easement in which there are no jurisdictional wetland,c and in which no Red Cockaded Woodpecker nesting or foraging area W been established. Water_ management facilities to accommodate the initial development area may occur east of the FPL easement, as provided for in SECTION ONE; Pmg[Vh 4.c. of development Order 904 The petitioner's agent notes the following in a February 19, 2010 letter to Jeff Klatzkow (A copy of that letter is included in the application package.): A subsequent DOA adopted in 2000 recognized that mitigation and management strategies would evolve and change by providing that before development could proceed in the areas of the DRI designated as a temporary Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) preserves, the RCW management plan must be "refreshed ". These changed mitigation and management strategies are reflected in the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) approved by and the City Gate Federal Fish & Wildlife Permit issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2009. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 2 of 5 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 Accordingly, City Gate must amend the DRI DO to reflect the latest listed species mitigation strategies and management methods required by the HCP and Permit. The agent's letter goes on to note that the current RCW mitigation and management methods have changed from what was originally approved 20 years ago. Therefore, the petitioner is revising the DRI DO to remove the outdated language and replace it with language consistent with the newly adopted management plan. The agent's letter refers to Florida Statutes (FS) regarding the process by which the amendment is approved as quoted below: The first point of analysis in any DOA is to determine whether it is a substantial deviation. Florida Statute 380.06(19)(e) provides in subsection (2) that certain development order changes are not substantial deviations, including subsection (h) which provides that: Changes required to conform to permits approved by any federal, state, or regional permitting agency, provided that these changes do not create additional regional impacts. The Statute further provides that such a change is processed by an application for DO amendment through the local government without the necessity of filing for an NOPC with the Regional Planning Council (RPC). The statutory language is as follows: This subsection does not require the filing of a notice of proposed change but shall require an application to the local government to amend the development order in accordance with the local government's procedures for amendment of a development order. In accordance with the local government's procedures, including requirements for notice to the applicant and the public, the local government shall either deny the application for amendment or adopt an amendment to the development order which approves the application with or without conditions. This method of a DOA is different than the norm, where the applicant files a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) with the County and Regional Planning Council. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (RPC): Copies of the submittal documents were provided to the RPC for review. The RPC recognizes the need to amend the DRI DO and PUD documents and agrees with the applicant that Florida Statutes do not require the filing and approval of a formal Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC). RPC staff has determined that no formal review by the RTC is required and a hearing before the RPC is not required. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 3 of 5 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 STAFF REVIEW: Development parameters contained in DRI Development Orders are prerequisite to zoning actions that implement DRI approved land use authorizations. DRI Development Orders are structured to contain regulations that respond to relationships dictated by State Administrative rules. Specifically, those relationships and questions that an applicant is required to analyze and report on as part of their Application for Development Approval (ADA) are included in the DRI DO. As noted above, the DRI DO contained a provision that required the petitioner to revisit and update the listed species mitigation strategies and management methods. That has been done and this amendment will incorporate the revised and now corrected language into the DRI DO. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition revised on August 30, 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition DOA -PL- 2010 -843 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval as described by the amending DRI Development Order resolution. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 4 of 5 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 PREPARED BY: KAY SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: RAYM D V. BEL WS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I D. LORENZ, R., P.E., DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: NICK CAS!AL9KGUIDA, DtPUTY ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN /)I //o DATE 7-Z3.10 DATE DATE d8 j"l-2olo DATE DATE Tentatively scheduled for the November 9, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting City Gate DRI, DOA- PL2010 -843 September 16, 2010 CCPC Revised 8/11/10 Page 5 of 5 DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2010- RESOLUTION NO. 2010- A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 88 -02, AS AMENDED, THE CITYGATE COMMERCE PARK DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO RED COCKADED WOODPECKERS; SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, approved Development Order 88 -02 (the "Development Order ") on December 13, 1988, which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Citygate Commerce Park Development Order; and WHEREAS, as a result of an appeal, a Settlement Agreement between Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs resulted in Development Order 90 -4, Resolution No. 90 -431 dated August 28, 1990 ( "1990 DOA "), which amended Section One: Conclusion of Law, Section 4, Vegetation and Wildlife /Wetlands, including paragraphs c and d (which were entitled "Off -Site Mitigation" and "Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan", respectively) of the Development Order; and WHEREAS, 850 NWN, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and CG II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, (collectively "Owners ") own the DRI property east of the Florida Power & Light Easement; and WHEREAS, the Owners, after formal consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, applied for the approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan and for a Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the United States Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (7 U.S.0 § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), which, among other things, incorporates the latest Red Cockaded Woodpecker ( "RC W ") management methods and mitigation strategies; and WHEREAS, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service approved the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan for the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker and Florida Panther ( "City Gate HCP "), document #2005050 -10.1 dated March 15, 2006 as revised through May 2008 and approved on March 30, 2009; and Underlined text is added; StvekHhreugh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 1 of 9 WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued to Owners a Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit TE145823 -0, issued July 1, 2009 ( "City Gate Federal Permit'); and WHEREAS, the City Gate Federal Permit incorporates the latest RCW mitigation strategies; and WHEREAS, the RCW mitigation strategies and management methods found in the 1990 DOA vary from the RCW mitigation strategies and RCW management plan found in the City Gate HCP and City Gate Federal Permit; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are required to conform to a permit approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and these changes do not create any additional regional impacts; and WHEREAS, Roger B. Rice, of Roger B. Rice, P.A., representing the Owners, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to amend the Development Order by amending the 1990 DOA; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on 2010; and WHEREAS, on __, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners, having considered application of proposed changes to the Development Order by amending the 1990 DOA, and the record made at said hearing, and having considered the record of the documentary and oral evidence presented to the Collier County Planning Commission; and report and recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission; the report and recommendation of the Collier County Planning Staff and Advisory Boards, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County hereby approves the following Citygate Commerce Park Development Order amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER 88 -02, AS AMENDED Conclusions of Law, Section 4 of Development Order 88 -2, as amended, "Vegetation and Wildlife/Wetlands ", is hereby amended by deleting subparagraphs b, c, and d in their entirety and adding a new subparagraph b to read as follows: 4. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE /WETLANDS: a. Golden Polypody Ferns and Butterfly Orchids shall be relocated to appropriate protected areas on -site. b. The 2.47 acres of wetlands preserve shown on the approved Master Development Plan Underline text is added; Struck tkreagh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 2 of 9 shall be preserved. ._ .. , �. •. gi - c. The Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan shall be the Red Cockaded Woodnecker Management Plan provisions in the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan for the Red - Cockaded Woodnecker and Florida Panther (City Gate HOPI document #2005050 -10.1 dated March 15, 2006 as revised through May 2008 and approved on March 30. 2009 by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Mitigation for Red Cockaded Woodpecker shall be the mitigation provisions in the Federal Fish & Wildlife Permit TE145823 -0. issued July 1 2009 (City Gate Federal Permit), pursuant to Section 10 of the United States Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (7 U.S.0 & 136 16 U.S.C. 6 1531 et seg.). 1. A Cony of this RCW Management Plan shall be filed with the original of this Resolution in the Records of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners 2. Conies of all Monitoring Reports and correspondence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding the City Gate HCP and City Gate Federal Permit shall be provided to Collier County and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) as part of the Annual Monitoring Report for the City Gate Commerce Park DRI. Underlined text is added; SRUSk-tlxeugh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8 /20/10 Page 3 of 9 The City Gate project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the RCW Management Plan if the City Gate project is in compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service under the City Gate HCP and the City Gate Federal Permit No violation of the RCW Management Plan under this Resolution may be charged unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall have initiated an action to suspend or revoke the City Gate Federal Permit for failure to comply with the RCW Management provisions thereof. Underlined text is added; Sfinek through text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 4 of 9 M. • . MIMI Underlined text is added; Sfinek through text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 4 of 9 MIMI Underlined text is added; Sfinek through text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 4 of 9 : MW Underlined text is added; ghmek threugh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 5 of 9 Y. OR MOMMIAM .. ..... . ... .. . .. . . .. 1, MM _ TM Underlined text is added; ghmek threugh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 5 of 9 Underlined text is added; Stme', thfeagh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 6 of 9 :�:• ••.- - ORION :• :: _.: WIN MM" mri m METU WINOWN — --- • Sol MINN. .' Underlined text is added; Stme', thfeagh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 6 of 9 ORION ...III lip mri m — --- Underlined text is added; Stme', thfeagh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 6 of 9 m — --- Underlined text is added; Stme', thfeagh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 6 of 9 M 31 • • - • - .. .. . .. _ .. .... M MOM - M 31 r.��rsrrr.�+afrnw:rsrnrl.. • • - • - .. .. . .. _ .. .... ON- - - NOUN . WIN Mulii' UN r.��rsrrr.�+afrnw:rsrnrl.. • • - • - .. .. . .. _ .. .... .. WIN Mulii' UN i SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT A. That the real property which is the subject of the proposed amendment is legally described as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. B. The application is in accordance with Section 380.06(19)(e)2., Florida Statutes. Underlined text is added; Struck thmugh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 7 of 9 The applicant submitted to the County notice as required by Section 380.06(19)(e)2. which provides "This Subsection does not require the filing of a notice of proposed change but shall require an application to the local government to amend the Development Order ...." C. A review of the impact generated by the proposed changes to the previously approved development has been conducted by the County's departments. D. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State concern pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, as amended. E. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order fall within Subsection 380.06(19)(e)2.h, Florida Statutes. SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(e)2.h, Florida Statutes. The proposed changes are required to conform with federal permits. B. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area. C. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted pursuant thereto. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. E. The proposed changes do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(e)l. and Section 380.06(19)(e)2.h., Florida Statutes, and therefore it is not subject to the public hearing requirements of 380.06(19)03. and it is not subject to a determination pursuant to Section 380.06(19)05. Underlined text is added; Stmek- 4veegh text is deleted. City Gate / DOA- PL2010 -843 Rev. 9/20/10 Page 8 of 9 SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE A. Except as amended hereby, Development Order 88 -02, as previously amended, shall remain in full force and effect, binding in accordance with the terms on all parties thereto. B. Copies of this Development Order shall be transmitted immediately upon execution to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Land and Water Management, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. C. This Development Order shall take effect as provided by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this _day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK In , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney CP \l0- CPS - 01033 \18 2010. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LE FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Underlined text is added; StFunk thFettgb text is deleted. City Gate /DOA -PL207 0 -843 Rev. 8/20/10 Page 9 of 9 17C HmA File No. 85.23 HOLE. MONTES AND ASSOC.. INC. 9/30/86 CONSULTING ENGINEE:�S — LA-'JO SURVEYORS Sheet 1 of 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The North half of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida LESS the West 100.00 feet thereof for right-of -way purposes and LESS the following described parcels: A parcel of land being a portion of the Northwest cuarter of - Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Being more particularly described as follows: Commencina at the quarter Section corner, com-non to Sections 34 and 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Said quarter corner being marked with a 4" x 4" concrete monument having a 3 -inch brass cap attached to the top thereof, with a 3/4 -inch iron pipe; thence along the Section line between said Sections 34'and 35, North 00 029115" West, 1,382.43 feet to a point on the Centerline of the proposed Access Road No. 1 as shown on the State of Florida Depactment of Transpontation Right -of -Way Map for State Road No. 93 (1 -75) Sheet 9 of 10; thence along said centerline of the proposed Access Road No. 1 North 89 031101" East, 100.09 feet to a point on the East right -of -way line of a canal, said point also being on the centerline of the proposed access road to the water treatment___ plant parcel; thence along said East canal right--of -way line North 00 029115" West, 50.00 feet to a 4" x 4" concrete monument marking the Northwest corner of the proposed access road right -of -way to the water treatment plant parcel; and being the true POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel to be herein described; thence along the North line of said access road right -of -way North 89 1131101" East, 456.51 feet to a 4" x 4" concrete monument marking the intersection of said North right -of -way with the West boundary line of the water treatment plant parcel; thence along said West boundary line North 00 °47'14 " - -East, -994.98 feet to an iron rod an the Westerly right -of -way of a strip of land 17C feet in width for a Florida, Power & Light Company (FP&L) right-of -way. as described in Official Records Book 681, Page 1210, Collier County Records; thence along said Westerly.FP &L right-of -way North 31 030128" East, 70.02 feet to an iron rod; thence continuing along said Westerly FP&L right-of-way South 58 130`03" East, 761.56 feet to a 4" x 4° concrete monument; thence conti-nuing along said Westerly FP&L right -of -way South 00 °47'14" West, 1,066.70 feet to a 4" x 4" concrete monument; thence continuing along said Westerly FP&L right -of -way South 00 1147114" West, 332.74 feet to an iron rod marking the intersection of said Westerly FP&L right -of -way with the South line of the North half of the South half of the Northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; said point also being the Southeast corner of the parcel being herein described; thence along said South line of the North half of the South half of the Northwest quarter of Section 35, South 89 004140" West, 690.82 feet to a 4" x 4" concrete monument; said 'Exhibit .gip„ 17C HMA ^iie No. 85.23 9130/s6 Sheet 2 of 2 point being the Southwest corner of the parcel being herein described; thence along the'West boundary line of said parcel North 00 °47114" East, 653.80 feet to a 4" x 4" concrete monument marking the intersection of the West boundary of the water treatment plant parcel with the South right -of -way of the proposed access road to the water treatment plant parcel; thence along said South right -of -way South 89 031101" West, 454_28 feet to a 4" x 4" concrete monument marking the intersection of said access road South right -of -way with the East right -of -way of a - canal;-thence -along said- canal -East right -of -way North 00129'15" West 100.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. /•1M A portion of the North half of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East; being described as follows; Begin on the South line of the North half of said Section 35, at a point North 89 000'01" East too.o0 feet from the Southwest corner of the North half of said Section 35, thence run North 00 °29'15" West, 1,334.19 feet, thence South 04 021408" East, '296 :92 -feet, thence South 02 046125' East,- 750.60 feet to- the - - - -. beginning of a curve concave to the Northeasterly having a radius of 336.00 feet, thence run Southerly along said curve 240.58 feet, through a central angle of 41 001129" to the end of said curve, thence South 43 147054" East, 94.86 feet to the South line of -the North half of said Section 35, thence South 89 °00'01 " - -- West, 205.27 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. WRED A portion of the North half of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East; being described as follows: Begin on the South line of the North half of said Section 35, at a point North 89 000101 ". East, 306,27 feet from the Southwest . corner of the North half of said Section 35, thence run North 43 047154" West, 94.86 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northeasterly having a radius of 336.00 feet, thence run Northwesterly along said curve 240.58 feet through a central angle of 41 001129" to the end of said curve, thence North 02046125" West, 750.60 feet, thence North 04 °21'08" West, 296.92 feet, thence North 00029115" West, 85.00 feet, thence North 89 °31101 -" East, 64.42 feet, thence South 04021'08" East, 378.34 feet, thence South 02'46'25" East, 751.56 feet, to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northeasterly having a radius of 266.00 feet, thence run Southeasterly along said curve 190.46 feet, through a central angle of 41001'29" to the end of said curve, thence South 43047154" East, 159.68 feet to the South line of the North half of said Section 35, thence South 89oo0'01° West, 95.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 287.187 acres, more or Jess. AGENDA ITEM 9 -13 Cot ie,;r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 SUBJECT: PUDA- PL2010 -845: CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER PUD (COMPANION TO DOA- PL2010 -843) PROPERTY OWNER &APPLICANT /AGENTS: Owner /Applicant 850 NWN LLC; CB II, LLC & City Gate Development, LLC 159 Main Street, Suite 500 Akron, OH 44309 REQUESTED ACTION: Agent: Josh Froth, Project Manager Davidson Engineering, Inc. 3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34105 The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a minor amendment to the City Gate Planned Unit Development (PUD) to amend Ordinance No. 88 -93 to revise Section VII, entitled Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan, to recognize that said Management Plan has been updated to conform to the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan and the City Gate Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 287 f acres, is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and City Gate Boulevard North in Section 35, Township 49 East, Range 26 South, Collier County, Florida. (See illustration on the following page). The subject property was originally rezoned from Agricultural (A) to PUD with the adoption of Ordinance No. 88 -93. That ordinance contained the requirements for a Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Management Plan in Section VII. In conjunction with the companion Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order (DO) amendment that amends that DRI DO to remove the outdated language and replace it with language consistent with the newly adopted management plan. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 1 of 10 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 LOCATION MAP 4 PETITION - PUDA -PL- 2010 -845 ZONING MAP (C.R. BSB) BROOKS VMITE BOULEVARD VILLAGE 18 15 GOLDEN CATS ESTATES GOLDEN GATE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 27 13 1H 17 ESTATES UNIT K UNIT 25 ro 14 E GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 15 GATE ESTATES CIDITE CENTER UNIT 194 CHEWRE ARMS GREEN BOULEVARD APTS GREEN BLVD. PUD GREEN BLVD. PUD m 21 22 $ 23 24 19 20 CO DEN ES GOLDEN GATE UNIT 195 GOLDEN GATE Pg1NDER5 VILLAS PUZA ZONE r GOLDEN GATE ESTATES PARKWAY �l PROMENADE ,�, � ASMLEYS SERVICE STA110N UNIT 28 N��yi JACARANDA CIT 1 V u CENTER 26 25 28 OUNDERS 27 30 29 PLAZA PROJECT OKAY PARKWAY LOCATION CENTER (S) BERKSHIRE MA& A GCOMMER ATE LAKES (DRI) HERON LAKES (S) PARK COLUER BLVD, MIXED SE COMMERCE CENTER (DRI) INTERSTATE -T5 8`�SHIRE 33 SAM 34 � WHITE LAKE 38 31 32 GREEN PARK MOUSTRIAL PARK (DRI) HERON wR[nNO m (ORI) SW � ALLiGA RADIO ROAD (C.R. B56T 99 pjpY d TOLL OAIE COMMERCIAL PLAZA DRI EAST ALLIGATOR ALLEY ) (S.R. BA W F7IXIL5 /COLLARIER TOLL i WOOD DE LANES BEVD MERCIAL PLAZA TOLL j TWELVE WE�SIPOR�T CCOMENTER P.V. PLAZA A LAKES CENTER 4 Q `� 3 2 'm FOREST GLEN 1 B 5 BE4BRI GE ESTATE a' 'CEDARfA( AMMO U OP NAPLES r o� NAPLES 4ERI7AGE COaITM NAPLES GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB pi CRAI /f� TAORASNA RESER .0 SAN MARMD TOLL � C CLUB NAPLES NATIONAL - RATTLESNAKE (DRI) (P) I B X70 wB 11 12 7 8 Im Ia I 3m HONES OP ISLANDIA I SMADDW- LASIP E..RVA. AREA I RD WOOD rEW /1 ✓ NAPLES LAKES ASSEMB LY TOLL -RATTL AKE MINISTRIES (DRI) (P) I 18 COUNTRY mug 14 13 1B 17 HUNTING di 15 GOOD IUIIN I NANOALAY CENTER HAMMOCK PARK MWIR.LEN COMMERCE CENTRE (P) LOCATION MAP 4 PETITION - PUDA -PL- 2010 -845 ZONING MAP The revised mitigation and management strategies are reflected in the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and the City Gate Federal Fish & Wildlife Permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2009. The PUD ordinance must be amended to reflect that same change, thus the petitioner seeks to remove Section VII of the PUD such that the HCP and the Permit will be the controlling documents for the project's RCW management plan. (See the staff report for Petition DOA- PL2010 -843 for additional information.) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Golden Gate Canal, then Safe Harbor Subdivision and Golden Gate Estates subdivision, a portion of Unit 28, with a zoning designation of Estates (E) East: An undeveloped 300± -acre tract, with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A) South: Developed industrial uses within the White Lake Industrial Park, with a zoning designation of PUD West: Collier Boulevard, then the undeveloped commercial tracts that are part of the Golden Gate Commerce Park PUD and the Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD Aerial Photo (subject property depiction is approximate) PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 Page 2 of 10 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject PUD /DRI is located in the Urban Designation and is partially (mostly) within the Industrial District and partially within the Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center #9, I -75 & Collier Boulevard), as designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The Urban Industrial District allows basic Industrial uses (manufacturing, processing, assembly, storage and warehousing, wholesaling, distribution, etc.), business parks, laboratories, and limited support commercial uses. The quadrant of Interchange Activity Center #9 in which a portion of this project is located allows the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, community facility uses, essential services, etc. Interchange Activity Center #9 is subject to an Interchange Master Plan (IMP), which was adopted by Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners, and to the implementing provisions adopted into Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.02.23. Any new development or redevelopment must be built in accordance with the provisions of the IMP and this section of the LDC. This PUD /DRI was approved in 1988, prior to adoption of the present Growth Management Plan. However, the commercial and industrial uses and intensities approved in this project are consistent with the FLUM designations in which it lies. This amendment proposes no change to the list of approved uses or use intensity; the amount and configuration of open space will remain the same; and the availability of improvements and facilities will not change if this amendment is approved. Therefore, staff concludes that the proposed amendment to the City Gate PUD /DRI may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map. 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 Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings "), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings "), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment 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 analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and offers the following comment: Since RCW cavities were identified on the City Gate property over twenty years ago, management tools and methods since that time (and those that were included in the original RCW management plan) have been modified and changed. The latest listed species mitigation strategies and management methods were required by the USFWS and were required to be incorporated into the approved City Gate HCP. These changes are reflected in their USFWS permit and as such need to be reflected in the DRI/ PUD. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 3 of 10 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 Transportation Review: It was determined prior to the Pre - application Meeting that the proposed amendment would not have any transportation impacts; therefore, Transportation Department staff was not involved in the review. Zoning Review: Staff evaluated the amendment proposed in light of any changes to approved uses and/or their intensities and /or densities; the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass; building location and orientation; the amount and type of open space and its location; and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses as part of the initial rezone and previous amendment requests. The amendment does not seek to alter any development standards nor increase the intensity of the project. No use changes are proposed that would affect traffic beyond what has already been reviewed and approved. The petitioner only seeks to amend Section VII of Ordinance Number 88 -93 to delete references to the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan because the information in the current PUD document is no longer correct and does not comport to the HCP and the City Gate Federal Permit that has been approved for the project. PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria "(LDC requirements are shown in italicized text and those are followed by staff's analysis shown in bold text): 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 type and pattern of development have already been reviewed and found compliant with all applicable LDC and GMP regulations. Furthermore, this project, as it develops, will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provide satisfactory evidence of unified control. Those portions of the existing ordinance not struck thru as part of this amendment and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis GMP as it is applicable to this amendment request. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 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. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 4 of 10 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 The proposed amendment is only to include a revised RCW Management Plan; therefore; the appropriateness of the uses within this project was reviewed in prior rezoning actions; no changes to the uses are proposed as part of this amendment. The landscaping and buffering requirements were already reviewed and approved during the rezoning process as well. The change proposed in this amendment request will not impact compatibility findings that have already been made. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this approved PUD meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. The proposed minor amendment will not change the amount of open space. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Since the project is currently being developed, the timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a significant problem for this amendment. In addition the project's development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Please refer to PUD finding number 6 above. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. No deviations are being sought in conjunction with this amendment therefore, this criterion is not applicable. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of 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." (LDC requirements are shown in italicized text and those are followed by staff's analysis shown in bold text): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. As noted in the GMP Consistency portion of this report, the proposed development standards revision would not affect the project's prior consistency finding. The project remains consistent with the goals and objectives of the FLUE; therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 5 of 10 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern is characterized by residentially zoned and used lands in all directions and on all sides. No change in uses is proposed as part of this amendment. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because no change is proposed to the boundaries of the subject property of this already zoned PUD. Full consideration was given to this issue during the previous rezoning actions. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn and as noted previously, no changes to zoning boundaries are proposed as part of this amendment. The PUD zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries. The location map on page two of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parcel. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The requested action is required because the petitioner must update the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order (DO) regarding the listed species mitigation strategies and management methods. The PUD document needs to match the DRI DO documents and ,therefore, the PUD is being amended. 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. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because ofpeak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. This PUD amendment does not increase the size or intensity of the currently approved PUD. In addition, development of the subject property is consistent with provisions of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Therefore, this project should not create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses and it should not affect the public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; Storm water management was addressed in the previous rezone process. The proposed development should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards as part of the local development order process that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage system will need to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new or on -going developments. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 6 of 10 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, The proposed amendment will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas outside the PUD. Furthermore, the PUD document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the locations of proposed preserve and open space areas should further ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed minor amendment will not adversely affect property values. However, this is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Properties around the site where this amendment would be applicable are generally separated by roadways or a canal. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and /or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The development complies with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed amendment does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed with the existing property development regulations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in order to respond to the requirement to update the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order (DO) regarding the listed species mitigation strategies and management methods. The PUD document need to match the DRI DO documents therefore the PUD is being amended. LDC Section 2.03.06 sets forth the purpose and intent of Plan Unit Development Districts, and staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 7 of 10 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The PUD document and the allowable development was found consistent with the GMP subdistrict requirements when the rezoning was originally approved; no changes are proposed as part of this amendment that would jeopardize that finding. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban - designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. This criterion is not applicable to this amendment as the uses have already been approved and no changes to those uses are proposed as part of this amendment. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16 The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. This site has already been altered and partially developed in compliance with the applicable LDC requirements, and further there is no "proposed zoning classification" as noted above. The zoning to PUD was previously approved; only an amendment is being considered. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to this petition. 17. The impact of development on the availability gf'adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to 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 amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is not seeking any deviations as part of this amendment to the PUD. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 8 of 10 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30/10 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This petition did not trigger the need for a hearing before the EAC because no environmental issues are being amended. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on July 13, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Fairfield Inn, 3808 White Lake Boulevard. Approximately 10 persons other than County staff and the petitioner's team attended the meeting. Mr. Rice explained the purpose of the NIM and provided an overview of the proposed PUD amendment. Mr. Rice provided a brief synopsis of the project's history, and had aerial photographs available for public viewing. The petitioner provided information regarding on -going RCW activities for this project involving the Picayune Strand State Forest and information about commitments fulfilled regarding traffic impacts. Concerns were raised by several attendees regarding clearing that has taken place along or near the project's north boundary, with Mr. Rice responding that the land within which the clearing was done was within a canal easement. Mr. Rice stated that clearing was done by the South Florida Water Management District or Collier County; the petitioner was not responsible for the clearing. Attendees raised concerns about vehicle use of the canal easement, to which Mr. Rice responded that as the petitioner for the PUD, he did not control the use of that easement, further suggesting that persons with concerns should contact Collier County. Several other general questions about building placement and construction/buffering timing were raised. Please refer to the Petitioner's written NIM synopsis that is included in the application material. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for PUDA -PL- 2010 -845 revised on August 30, 2010. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDA -PL- 2010 -845 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD Page 9 of 10 September 16, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/30110 PREPARED BY: KAY DBSELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: RAYMORD V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES vi •25 - ILLIAM D. L 4NZR, P.E., DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: NI ASALANGUID , EPU ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Tentatively scheduled for the November 9, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDA- PL2010 -845, City Gate Commerce Center PUD August 19, 2010 CCPC Rev: 8/23/10 Page 10 of 10 ORDINANCE NO. 10 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 88 -93, THE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY DELETING SECTION VII CONTAINING THE RED COCKADED WOODPECKER MANAGEMENT PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on December 13, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners adopted (1) Ordinance No. 88 -93, the City Gate Commerce Park Planned Unit Development (the "PUD ") and (2) Development Order 88 -02 (the "Development Order "), which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Citygate Commerce Park Development Order; and WHEREAS, as a result of an appeal by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), a Settlement Agreement between Collier County and DCA resulted in Development Order 90- 4, Resolution No. 90 -431 dated August 28, 1990 (1990 DOA), which amended Section One: Conclusions of Law, Section 4, Vegetation and Wildlife /Wetlands, including paragraphs c and d (which were entitled "Off -Site Mitigation" and "Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan", respectively) of the Development Order; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the 1990 DOA are the currently effective provisions relating to Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management and mitigation; and WHEREAS, 850 NWN, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and CG II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, (collectively "Petitioner ") owns the PUD property east of the FPL Easement; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner, after formal consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS), developed the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan (City Gate HCP), which incorporates the latest Red- Cockaded Woodpecker ( "RCW") management methods; and WHEREAS, the City Gate HCP was approved by the USFWS on March 30, 2009 and issued a Federal Fish &Wildlife Permit (City Gate Federal Permit) to the Petitioner on July 1, 2009; and Underlined text is added; Struek through text is deleted. Page I of 5 City Gate PUDA- PL2010 -845 Rev, 7/19/10 WHEREAS, the City Gate Federal Permit incorporates the most current RCW mitigation strategies; and WHEREAS, the RCW Management Plan in the 1988 PUD varies from the RCW management plan and mitigation strategies required by the City Gate HCP and City Gate Federal Permit; and WHEREAS, Roger B. Rice, of Roger B. Rice, P.A., representing the Petitioner, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to amend the PUD; and WHEREAS, Petitioner, simultaneously with Petitioner's petition to amend the PUD in the manner set forth herein, has petitioned to amend the 1990 DOA to conform the RCW Management Plan and mitigation strategies of the Development Order to the RCW management and mitigation requirements of the City Gate HCP and Federal Permit respectively; and WHEREAS, upon the approval of Petition Number DOA- PL2010 -843 and the adoption of a resolution amending the 1990 DOA (the 2010 DOA), the operative RCW management and mitigations requirements for the City Gate DRI/PUD will be the requirements of the 2010 DOA; and WHEREAS, for clarity and administrative efficiency, both the County and Petitioner agree that: (1) the RCW management and mitigations requirements for the City Gate DRI/PUD will be the requirements of the City Gate HCP and Federal Permit respectively which shall be required by the 2010 DOA, and (2) that any actual or potential conflicts between the DRI and PUD with respect the RCW management and mitigation should be eliminated by deleting all provisions regarding RCW management and mitigation from the PUD, so that the requirements shall be only as set forth in the 2010 DOA; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on 2010. WHEREAS, the Petitioner and the Board of County Commissioners desire to amend the PUD to conform to the City Gate HCP and the City Gate Federal Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Underlined text is added; Sauek through text is deleted. Page 2 of 5 City Gate PUDA- PI,2010 -845 Rev. 7/19/10 SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION VII OF THE PUD DOCUMENT IN ORDINANCE NO. 88-93, THE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK PUD. Ordinance 88 -93 is hereby amended as follows: Section VII of the PUD document is hereby deleted in its entirety: . Underlined text is added; Struek throu gh text is deleted. Page 3 of 5 City Gate PUDA- PI,2010 -845 Rev. 7/19/10 .. •- - s - Underlined text is added; Struek throu gh text is deleted. Page 3 of 5 City Gate PUDA- PI,2010 -845 Rev. 7/19/10 SECTION TWO: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super- majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK S , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: t Heidi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney CPV 0- CPS - 01034 \7 City Gate PUDA- PL2010.845 Rev. 7/19/10 2010. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Underlined text is added; Stwek Ntreagh text is deleted. Page 5 of 5 (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # 9 A 4 a MEETING DATE `j - 16-10 (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE NAME Representing/ ADDRESS Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004 -05 AND 2007 -24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PRIOR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD