Loading...
Agenda 01/12/2016 Item # 9B 1/12/2016 9.B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve,with conditions, an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2003-11, the East Gateway Planned Unit Development, by adding 250 residential dwelling units to be developed in addition to the commercial development on the commercial development area or as an alternative to industrial and business park development on the industrial business park development area; by changing the name of the planned unit development to the East Gateway Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; by adding Permitted Uses for residential development; by adding Development Standards for residential development; by adding Deviations; by revising the Master Plan; by adding Exhibit B and Exhibit C, Road Right-of-Way Cross Sections; by revising Developer Commitments for the PUD located on the north side of Davis Boulevard and west of CR 951 in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37.35± acres; and by providing an effective date [Petition PUDA-PL20140000548]. OBJECTIVE: To review Staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this Planned Unit Development Amendment petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the current East Gateway Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district for the purpose of adding a maximum of 250 residential dwelling units to the PUD in the Commercial Development Area or as an alternative in the Industrial/Business Park Development Area, creating a Mixed Use PUD (MPUD), and deviations to permit sidewalks on only one side of streets and locate the required preserve off-site. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts on public facilities of each new development. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by Staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed PUD Amendment application. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and the FLUM designation is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and Staff believes the petition is consistent with the Collier County GMP as discussed in the attached CCPC Staff Report. Staff believes that the proposed Amendment Packet Page-121- 1/12/2016 9.B. may also be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element, GMP Transportation Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Therefore, Zoning Staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on October 1, 2015. A copy of the transcript is attached to this Executive Summary. The CCPC heard testimony from the Applicant's agent, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and County Staff. During the discussion, members of the CCPC asked questions primarily directed at the deviations for having sidewalks on only one side of the street (Deviation 3) and for taking the entire preserve off site (Deviation 4). The Conservancy's representative stated that her organization was opposed to Deviation 4 (please see attached letter). A motion was made by Commissioner Homiak and seconded by Commissioner Strain to recommend approval subject to several minor changes and the deletion of Deviations 3 and 4. The motion also recommended that the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) on-site "created preserve" be counted towards the County's preserve requirement, and that the rest of the required acreage for the preserve be retained on-site and be configured according to LDC regulations, with Staff to identify all necessary additional deviations (3) required to achieve LDC compliance. The motion was approved by the CCPC by a vote of 3 to 1 (Commissioner Ebert dissenting). The CCPC, sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), was also required to hear this petition. Any PUD that requests a deviation from the environmental standards of the LDC or any development order that requests a deviation from the provisions of Policy 6.1.1.(13) of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP requires a hearing before the EAC. Commissioner Homiak made the same motion, seconded by Commissioner Strain. The motion was approved by the EAC by a vote of 4 to 0, subject to the deletion of Deviation 4. The East Gateway PUDA was heard on the CCPC's December 3, 2015 consent agenda (to review that the requested changes had been made). Upon review,the CCPC found that the requested changes were not made to Deviations 3 and 4 and voted to deny the consent-version of the PUDA. The vote to deny was 5 — 0 (Commissioner Solis had recused himself from the original hearing and Commissioner Assaad was not a commissioner at the time of the original hearing and,therefore, both did not vote). The CCPC recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the East Gateway PUD Amendment with the deletion of Deviation 3 and Deviation 4; and modifying the PUD language and adding deviations for providing flexibility on how the entire preserve could be retained on site: permit the "created preserve" to count towards the County preserve requirement; permit Stormwater in the created portion of the County preserve; and permit the Master Plan to not indicate a minimum of 75 percent of the preserve [with the preserve being indicated at the time of the next development order—plat or site development plan]). The following changes should be made to the Applicant's proposed PUD document to conform to the CCPC's vote: 1) Delete Deviation 3 (requests sidewalks on only one side of the street). Packet Page-122- 1/12/2016 9.B. 2) Delete Deviation 4 (requests taking the entire preserve off-site), and add three deviations: a) A Deviation seeking relief from Section 3.05.07.H.l.e.ii.b of the LDC: "approved created preserves may be used to recreate not more than two acres of the required preserves if the property has equal to or greater than twenty acres and less than eighty acres of existing native vegetation" in order to permit a 2.5 acre South Florida Water Management District created preserve of greater than two acres on a 35-acre parcel. b) A Deviation seeking relief from Section 3.05.07.H.1.h.ii.b of the LDC: "preserve areas shall not be used to meet water quality requirements as set forth in Section 5.2.1(a) of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications for the South Florida Water Management District or the Watershed Management regulations of Section 3.07.00" in order to permit the 2.5 acre South Florida Water Management District created preserve to be used to meet water quality requirements. c) A Deviation seeking relief from Section 3.05.07.H.1.a.ii of the LDC: "if the development is a PUD, the preserve shall be identified on the PUD Master Plan, if possible. If this is not possible, a minimum of 75 percent of the preserve shall be set aside on the PUD Master Plan with the remaining 25 percent identified at the time of the next development order submittal" in order to permit the PUD Master Plan to indicate less than 75 percent of the preserve area. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a PUD Amendment. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the BCC, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria. Criteria for PUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: 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. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Packet Page-123- 1/12/2016 9.B. 4. Consider: 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. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change 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? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? Packet Page-124- 1/12/2016 9.B. 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a"core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: 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. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been approved as to form and legality. An affirmative vote of four is required for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: The attached PUD document is the version requested by the Applicant, which includes Deviations 3 and 4. County Staff recommends approval with the deletion of Deviations 3 and 4 (without the additional deviations proposed by the CCPC). The CCPC recommends approval of the East Gateway PUD Amendment with the deletion of Deviation 3 and Deviation 4; and modifying the PUD language and adding deviations that would permit the "created preserve" to count towards the County preserve requirement, to permit Stormwater in the created portion of the County preserve, and to permit the Master Plan to not indicate a minimum of 75 percent of the preserve [with the preserve boundaries being indicated at the time of the next development order: plat or site development plan]). The three deviations requested by the CCPC if the BCC decision is to approve the CCPC's recommendation are: Packet Page-125- 1/12/2016 9.B. a) A Deviation seeking relief from Section 3.05.07.H.1.e.ii.b of the LDC: "approved created preserves may be used to recreate not more than two acres of the required preserves if the property has equal to or greater than twenty acres and less than eighty acres of existing native vegetation" in order to permit a 2.5 acre South Florida Water Management District created preserve of greater than two acres on a 35-acre parcel. b) A Deviation seeking relief from Section 3.05.07.H.1.h.ii.b of the LDC: "preserve areas shall not be used to meet water quality requirements as set forth in Section 5.2.1(a) of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications for the South Florida Water Management District or the Watershed Management regulations of Section 3.07.00" in order to permit the 2.5 acre South Florida Water Management District created preserve to be used to meet water quality requirements. c) A Deviation seeking relief from Section 3.05.07.H.1.a.ii of the LDC: "if the development is a PUD, the preserve shall be identified on the PUD Master Plan, if possible. If this is not possible, a minimum of 75 percent of the preserve shall be set aside on the PUD Master Plan with the remaining 25 percent identified at the time of the next development order submittal" in order to permit the PUD Master Plan to indicate less than 75 percent of the preserve area. Prepared by: Fred Reischl,AICP, Principal Planner,Zoning Division Attachments: 1) Ordinance 2) Staff Report 3) Application http://www.collierQov.net/ftp/2016BCCMeetin2s/A gendaJan 122016/GrowthMgmt/Application.pdf 4) CCPC Transcript 5) Conservancy Letter Packet Page-126- 1/12/2016 9.B. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.B. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve, with conditions, an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2003-11,the East Gateway Planned Unit Development, by adding 250 residential dwelling units to be developed in addition to the commercial development on the commercial development area or as an alternative to industrial and business park development on the industrial business park development area; by changing the name of the planned unit development to the East Gateway Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; by adding Permitted Uses for residential development; by adding Development Standards for residential development; by adding Deviations; by revising the Master Plan; by adding Exhibit B and Exhibit C, Road Right-of-Way Cross Sections; by revising Developer Commitments for the PUD located on the north side of Davis Boulevard and west of CR 951 in Section 34,Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37.35±acres; and by providing an effective date [Petition PUDA- P L20140000548]. Meeting Date: 1/12/2016 Prepared By Name: ReischlFred Title:Planner,Principal,Zoning 12/9/2015 3:24:05 PM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning,Zoning Date: 12/14/2015 5:15:50 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Division Director-Planning and Zoning,Zoning Date: 12/15/2015 8:57:01 AM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst,Operations&Regulatory Management Packet Page-127- 1/12/2016 9.B. Date: 12/16/2015 1:36:42 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Operations&Regulatory Management Date: 12/16/2015 1:37:34 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Administration Date: 12/21/2015 10:35:14 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title:Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 12/23/2015 9:45:05 AM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Division Director-Corp Fin&Mgmt Svc, Office of Management&Budget Date: 12/23/2015 9:57:35 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 12/28/2015 10:47:04 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 1/6/2016 9:39:41 AM Packet Page-128- 1/12/2016 9.B. Li]H- EIT ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2003-11, THE EAST GATEWAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY ADDING 250 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED IN ADDITION TO THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT ON THE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT AREA; BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST GATEWAY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING PERMITTED USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING DEVIATIONS; BY REVISING THE MASTER PLAN; BY ADDING EXHIBIT B AND EXHIBIT C, A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTION; BY REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS FOR THE PUD LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND WEST OF CR 951 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 37.35± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PETITION PUDA-PL20140000548] WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing BC Naples Investments, LLP, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: Amendments to the PUD Document, Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 2003- 11. The East Gateway PUD Document, Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 2003-11, is hereby amended and replaced with Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2016. [14-CPS-01350/1228984/1] 158 East Gateway PUD\PUDA-PL20140000548 1 of Rev. 12/16/15 Packet Page -129- 1/12/2016 9.B. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—East Gateway PUD Document [14-CPS-01350/1228984/1]158 East Gateway PUDU'UDA-PL20140000548 2 nf2 Rey. 12/16/15 Packet Page-130- 1/12/2016 9.B. EAST GATEWAY A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING EAST GATEWAY, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: THOMAS G.ECKERTY, TRUSS I 75 EXIT ISLAND TRUST �� r •• BC NAPLES INVESTMENTS,LLP 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, NAPLES, FL 34105 PREPARED BY: RWA CONSULTING, INC. 3050 NOR TH HORSESHOE DRIVE SUITE 270 NAPLES. FLORIDA 31101 O. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 AND COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUITE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC 2/6/03 DATE APPROVED BY BCC 2/25/03 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2003-11 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL Exhibit"A" Words struetk-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-15-2015 Packet Page-131- 1/12/2016 9.B. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits and Tables Statement of Compliance ii Section I Legal Description, Property Ownership and General Description I-1 Section II Project Development II-1 Section III Commercial/Residential Area Development Area Standards III-1 Section IV IndustrialBusiness Park or Residential Development Area Standards IV-1 Section V Development Commitments V-1 Words struek-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-132- 1/12/2016 9.B. LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A P-14-DMPUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B 40' ROW CROSS-SECTION EXHIBIT C 54' ROW CROSS-SECTION TABLE I PROJECT LAND USE TRACT Words eiruelf-threugh are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-133- 1/12/2016 9.B. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 37.3-9-35 acres of property in Collier County as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development to be known as East Gateway will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The residential, commercial, and industrial\business park land uses of the East Gateway MPUD are consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan for the following reasons: 1. The subject property proposed for development is within the Urban Commercial District/Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map as provided for in Objective I of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. 2. The subject property is located in Activity Center#9. The land uses, and land use intensities proposed are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Residential projects are eligible to request up to 16 dwelling units per acre. 3. Development of the East Gateway 4?-44.14MPUD shall be consistent with the Activity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan. 4. The subject property is located on the southwest quadrant of the I-75/Exit I 5Davis Boulevard Interchange. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of commercial and industrial/business park activities, or higher density residential development. 5. The project is a mixed-use development located within a designated Activity Center, therefore, the proposed residential, commercial, and industrial/business park land uses are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 6. The development will be compatible with and complementary to existing and planned surrounding land uses. :6. _ .. - - -- . -. - : _ e Future Land Use Element. &7. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. 9 8. The East Gateway 14 4 MPUD is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. &9. All final Development Orders within the East Gateway 124413MPUD are subject to the Collier County Concurrency Management System, as implemented by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. ii Words struelc-threugh are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-134- 1/12/20169.B. SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the East Gateway 1M4 MPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION • • • _ • ' • '• _ • _ COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE SOUTH 50 FEET THEREOF. (O.R. BOOK 4393, PG. 4095) A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 726.00 FEET OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA, LESS AND EXCEPT THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR 1-75 (STATE ROAD NO. 93), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 50 FEET THEREOF: BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34 AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4, S 88°55'22" E 592.95 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID SOUTH LINE, N 00°21'36" E 50.00 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE NORTH LINE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (STATE ROAD 84) 100.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED: THENCE LEAVING THE SAID NORTH LINE, CONTINUE N 00°21'36" E 2388.33 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID I-75 (STATE ROAD NO. 93); THENCE ALONG THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) DESCRIBED COURSES; THENCE S 68°12'38" E 406.96 FEET; THENCE S 62°39'17" E 389.59 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4; THENCE ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE, S 00°21'36" W 2071.95 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE N 88°5522" W 726.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. 1-3 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-135- 1/12/2016 9.B. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 37.315 ACRES MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by the 1 75 Exit 15 Land Trust, Thomas G. Eckerty, T-FusteeBC Naples Investments, LLP. 1.4 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The development property is located in the southwest quadrant of the I-75, Exit 15Davis Boulevard Interchange, with frontage on Davis Boulevard (State Road 84), in Section 34, Township 49 South,Range 26 East. The proposed project site is presently undeveloped, but has been historically timbered, and utilized for cattle grazing. The majority of the property has extensive infestation of the exotic species Melaleuca. The property is generally without topographic relief, with elevations ranging from 9.8' to 11.6' above mean sea level. The site contains areas of jurisdictional wetlands including transitional wetlands in which the predominant vegetation is a mix of pine and cypress and associated upland and wetland plants. Natural drainage is southwesterly. The proposed water management regime for the project utilizes detention areas that will result in the post development surface water discharge volume being no more than the pre-development discharge volume. 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The East Gateway P-UDMPUD shall be a mixed-use development, with a commercial and/or residential development located on the Davis Boulevard frontage, and the industrial/office park development or residential opportunity to be located on the northerly portion of the 42.1:44)MPUD property. The commercial component of the development is limited to 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, and will be located on a 20± acre parcel. The commercial land uses proposed are those typically associated with major interchanges, including, but not limited to, convenience stores with gas pumps, restaurants, fast-food and/or sit-down dining, banks, and shopping centers anchored by a major grocery store, and/or major retail store(s). There is the potential for professional offices to be located in a shopping center, or developed in out-parcels within the commercial development area. The industrial/office park/residential development is limited to 250,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, and will be located on a 17± acre parcel. The industrial/business park land uses may be, but are not required to be, those typically associated with land development activities including but not limited to engineering and surveying offices, building material supply, and home improvement supply. A maximum of 250 residential dwellings shall be permitted in the entire PUD. Allocation of the dwelling units within the site will be determined at the time of SDP/Plat approval Each residential, industrial, commercial or industrial/business park land use, will be served with centrally provided potable water, sanitary sewer, electric power, and telephone services. Additional services will be provided as deemed appropriate. I-4 Words struck-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-136- 1/12/2016 9.B. The entire 37.435± acre project is the stormwater management basin. The storm water management system consists of preserve/native vegetation for storm attenuation and dry detention for water quality. A catch basin/culvert system along with overland sheet flow will collect and convey project run-off to the dry detention areas, and to the preserve/native vegetation area once acceptable water quality is achieved. Flood protection will be provided to the project by raising buildings, roads, etc. in conformance with South Florida Water Management District criteria. The South Florida Water Management District criteria for building pad elevation is the 100-year, 3-day/zero- discharge storm elevation, and the minimum road elevation is based on the 25 year, 3-day storm event. After heavy rainfall events, surface waters from storage areas will be discharged through a bleed-down structure into the existing preserve in the Saddlebrook Village PUD to the west. The water control structure for Saddlebrook Village was designed to accommodate the discharge from the proposed The East Gateway I BMPUD. The off-site outfall was constructed during the construction of Saddlebrook Village. Said out-fall is in existence and functional.No further design modifications to the existing system are required. 1.6 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "East Gateway Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Ordinance". I-5 Words Antel;-tpeugh are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page -137- 1112120169.B. SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County Ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the East Gateway 1?13DMPUD development, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the East Gateway 1 -BMPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, l9PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the East Gateway 1 .4 MPUD shall become part of the regulations that govern the manner in which the 113MPUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this 421413MPUD, the provisions of other sections of the Land Development Code, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this 1 BMPUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the County Land Development Code, at the earliest or next to occur of Final Site Development Plan, Final Plat approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this development. I1-1 Words struelk-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-138- 1/12/2016 9.B. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS A. The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUDMPUD Master Plan. There shall be two land use tracts, portions of which may include water management lakes or facilities, and private street rights-of-way, the general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit "A". TABLE I PROJECT LAND USE TRACTS TYPE UNITS/SO. FT. ACREAGEd COMMERCIAL_ 200,000 TRACT"C/R" AND/OR 250* 20 RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL/ 250,000 TRACT"I/B/R" BUSINESS PARK OR 17 RESIDENTIAL 250* *A maximum of 250 dwelling units are permitted within the MPUD B. Areas within theDMPUD may be excavated and constructed as lakes or, upon approval, may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of Final Plat or Site Development Plan approval, subject to the provisions of Sections 3.2.6.3.5. and 2.7.3.5. respectively, of the Collier County Land Development Code, or as otherwise permitted by this 4:44BMPUD document. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown on Exhibit "A", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-private) shall be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT INTENSITY A maximum of 200,000 square feet (gross leasable floor area) of commercial development may be constructed in the "C/R" Commercial Tract. A maximum of 250,000 square feet (gross leasable floor area) of industrial and/or business park development may be constructed in the "I/B/R" IndustrialBusiness Park or Residential Tract. A maximum of 250 dwelling units are permitted to be distributed within one or between both development tracts. If any Industrial/Business Park uses are is constructed on the "I/B/R" Industrial/Business Park or Residential Tract, then no residential uses or dwelling units are allowed on this Tract. II-2 Words str=uek tlrpeugh are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-139- 1/12/2016 9.B. 2.5 PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a record plat for all or part of the PU-DMPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the P4 MPUD Master Development Plan, the Collier County Subdivision Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan by the PUD Master Plan. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. •• . . _. e' he issuance of a building permit or other development • - - - 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code, prior to the submittal of regarding any dedications and methods for providing perpetual maintenance of 2.6 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATIONS Should lakes be excavated, the lake setback requirements described in Section 3.5.7.11.1f the Land Development Code may be reduced with the administrative approval of the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator, or his designee. Lakes may be excavated to the maximum commercial excavation depths set forth in Section 3.5.7.3.1. of the Land Development Code, however, removal of fill from the East Gateway 4J-9MPUD shall be limited to an amount up to ten percent (10%) (to a maximum 20,000 cubic yards), of the total volume excavated unless a commercial excavation permit is received. A commercial excavation is not a permitted use. II-3 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-140- 1/12/2016 9.B. 2.7 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY A. All platted project streets shall be private and shall be classified as local streets. Utilization of lands within all project rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and signage may be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator, or his designee, for engineering and safety considerations prior to installation. B. Off street parking required for commercial uses shall be accessed by parking aisles or driveways that are separate from the project's connector road to Bedzel Circle in the 951 Commerce Center PUD. A green space area of not less than ten (10') feet in width as measured from the property line, or edge of pavement, whichever is greater, shall separate any parking aisle or driveway from the project's connector road to Bedzel Circle. 2.8 AMENDMENTS TO P BMPUD DOCUMENT OR PUOMPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this P-t4-9MPUD Ordinance or 1 -DMPUD Master Development Plan, Exhibit"A", as provided for in Section 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County Land Development Code. Minor changes and refinements as described in Section 7.3.C. of this PUD document may be made in connection with any type of development or permit application required by the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.9 DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREAS & FACILITIES Easements shall be provided for water management areas, rights-of-way, utilities and other purposes as required. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time of adoption of this Ordinance establishing the East Gateway P4 MPUD. Whenever the developer elects to create land area whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of property within the East Gateway 1 -BMPUD, the developer shall provide appropriate legal instruments for the establishment of a Property Owners' Association whose function shall include provision for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open space, subject further to the provisions of Section 2.2.20.3.8. of the Collier County Land Development Code. II-4 Words siruelf-threugh are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page -141- 1/12/2016 9.B. 2.10 FILL STORAGE Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.2.8.3.6. of the Collier County Land Development Code, fill storage is generally permitted as 'a principal use throughout the East Gateway PUDMPUD. Fill material d may be stockpiled within areas designated for development. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, a Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Permit, along with plans showing the locations and cross-sections shall be submitted to Collier County Planning Services Staff for review and approval. The following standards shall apply: A. Stockpile maximum side slope: 3:1 B. Stockpile maximum height: thirty-five (35) feet C. Fill storage areas shall be screened with a security fence at least six (6) feet in height above ground level. If fill is spread to a height less than four feet over development areas that are depicted on an approved Site Development Plan, no fencing is required. D. Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Division 3.7 of the Land Development Code. E. Fill storage shall not be permitted in Preserve Areas. • ._ • local, State. or Federal agency with jurisdiction over the property proposed for development, the developer shall obtain such permits prier to final development order approval. 2.122.11 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Policy 6.441.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, . . - -- •. . . - •- _ .- - _ _ - _. . •- . - eased on the 9.3130.87±acres of native vegetation on-site, 7.72± acres (25% of the viable, naturally functioning-native vegetation on site) is required to be fetainedpreserved or replanted. The recreated preserve area depicted on Exhibit "A", PUDMPUD Master Plan is approximately 5.72.5* acres, therefore, satisfy the 9.31 acre requirement. The entire 7.72± acres of required preserve shall bo . - - - : ' , - .- _ - `= •. . The applicant has requested deviation #4 to allow 100%of the native vegetation retention (preserve) requirement to be met off-site. The conceptual PUD master plan depicts an area labeled SFWMD created preserve. This re- II-5 Words struck-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-142- 1/12/2016 9.B. created preserve area is intended to meet requirements of other review agencies and is not credited toward Collier County native vegetation preservation requirements. 2.132.12 LINKAGE TO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Pursuant to Subsection 2.7.3.3. of the Land Development Code, upon adoption of the P-W MPUD Ordinance and attendant PUDMPUD Master Plan, the provisions of the P-Y-BMPUD document become a part of the Land Development Code and shall be the standards of development for the PUB,MPUD. Thenceforth, development in the area delineated as the East Gateway P-61-14MPUD District on the Official Zoning Map will be governed by the adopted development regulations and DMPUD Master Plan. 2.13 DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.9, On-premises Directional Signs, for non residential districts, which permits two non-residential directional signs at each project entrance at a maximum of 6 square feet each, to permit a maximum of 2 non-residential directional signs at the vehicular, interconnect with the 1-75 Alligator Alley PUD at a maximum of 32 square feet each. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60-foot wide local road to allow a minimum 54' wide local road for non-residential development and a minimum 40' wide local road for residential development. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks which are internal to the development to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the private street only, as identified on Exhibits B and C. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.l.f.i(d), Preservation Standards, a property owner may request that of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for properties where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 1 acre in size to allow offsite preservation where the on-site preserve requirement is more than 1 acre. The proposed off-site preservation would be for 100% of the native vegetation of 7.72 acres with off-site preservation at a 1:1 ratio. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.04.D, Standards for Cluster Residential Design, which requires the zero lot line portion of the dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line to allow windows along portions of the principal building that is on the zero setback line. II-6 Words struek-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-143- - 1/12/2016 9.B. SECTION III COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA(TRACT "C/R") 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as Tract "C/R", Commercial Development Area on Exhibit "A", 34)MPUD Master Plan. 3.2 MAXIMUM e • .. • - . e - •.'- INTENSITY The 20± acre Commercial Development Area (Tract "C/R"), shall not be developed with more than 200,000 square feet of commercial uses. Should a hotel or motel be proposed, a commensurate amount of commercial development opportunity shall be lost, based on a comparison of average annual daily trip generations. Up to 250 dwelling units shall be permitted throughout the "C/R" area however, where both commercial and residential are developed within this area, buffers between uses shall be required as described in Section 3.4.D. No more than 250 dwelling units shall be permitted in the entire PUD. 33 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses l: 1) Any retail businesses as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following categories: a. 521-Lumber and other Building Materials Dealers; b. 523 -Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper stores; c. 525 -Hardware stores; d. 526-Retail Nurseries,Lawn and Garden Supply Stores; e. Major Group 53 -General merchandise stores. 2) Any retail store engaged in selling food as defined under Major Group 54 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 3) Any retail businesses engaged in selling automobile parts and accessories; and retail gasoline sales (without service facilities), as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following 1 Reference Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget,Standard Industrial Classification Manual; 1987 Edition III -1 Words struek-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-144- 1/12/2016 9.B. categories: a. 553 - Auto and Home Supply stores, not including any installation facilities; b. 554-Gasoline Stations, not including service facilities; c. 7542 -Carwashes only. 4) Any retail businesses engaged in selling apparel and accessories as defined under Major Group 56 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 5) Any retail businesses engaged in selling home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores as defined under Major Group 57 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 6) Any retail establishment selling prepared foods and drinks, including alcoholic drinks (for consumption on the premises), as defined under Major Group 58 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 7) Any miscellaneous retail businesses as defined under Major Group 59 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, not including Industry Group Numbers: 593 - Used Merchandise Stores; 596 - Nonstore Retailers; 598 -Fuel Dealers; and not including the retail sale of fireworks. 8) Establishments operating primarily in the fields of finance, insurance, and real estate as defined under Major Groups 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 67 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 9) Establishments operating primarily to provide temporary lodging such as hotels or motels as defined under Industry Group 7011 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. No more than 150 rooms shall be permitted. 10)Establishments operating primarily to provide personal services as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following Industry Groups: a. 721 - Laundry, Cleaning, and Garment Services, only including 7211 - Power laundries, family and commercial, and 7215 - Coin-operated laundries and dry-cleaning; b. 722 -Photographic Portrait Studios; c. 723 -Beauty Shops; d. 724 -Barber Shops; e. 725 - Shoe Repair Shops and Shoeshine Parlors; f. 726 -Funeral Service,and Crematories; g. 729 - Miscellaneous Personal Services, only including 7291 - Tax return preparation services, and 7299 personal services, only including car title II1-2 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-145- 1/12/2016 9.B. and tag service, computer photography or portraits, costume rental, dress gym„ suit and tuxedo rental, electrolysis (hair removal), hair weaving or replacement service, and tanning salons. 11)Establishments operating primarily to provide business services as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following Industry Numbers: a. 7311 -Advertising Agencies; b. 7334-Photocopying and Duplicating Services; c. 7371 -Computer Programming Services. 12)Establishments operating primarily to produce, distribute, and exhibit motion pictures as defined under Major Group 78 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 13)Establishments operating primarily to provide legal services as defined under Major Group 81 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 14)Establishments operating primarily to provide engineering, accounting, research, and management for the following Industry Numbers: a. 8711 -Engineering Services (no outside equipment storage); b. 8712 -Architectural Services (no outside equipment storage); c. 8721 -Accounting, Auditing, and Bookkeeping Services; d. 8732 -Commercial Economic, Sociological, and Educational Research; e. 8742 -Management Consulting Services; f. 8743 -Public Relations Services; g. 8748 -Business Consulting Services. 15)Offices of government as defined under Major Group 91 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 16)Residential Dwelling Units a. Multi-family b. Townhouse c. Two-family attached d. Single family (zero lot line) e. Single family detached I11-3 Words struck-threugh are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-146- 1/12/2016 9.B. B. Accesso ry Uses Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1) Parking facilities and Signage. 2) One caretaker's residence. 2) On-site recreational facilities. Residential community recreation facilities located within the C/R tract shall be required to provide a minimum building setback of 30 feet if located adjacent to the perimeter of the PUD. Hours of operation for any outdoor facilities shall be from dawn to dusk. Lighting shall be shielded from adjoining properties and limited to either bollard type lighting limited to the minimum height needed for security purposes or other lighting but no greater than 12 feet in height. 3) Model homes and model sales centers. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (COMMERCIAL) A. MINIMUM LOT AREA: 10,000 square feet. B. AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: 100 feet. C. MINIMUM YARDS (INTERNAL): 1) Front Yard: 25 feet or one-half of the building height as measured from each exterior wall. 2) Side Yard: One-half of the building height as measured from each exterior wall, with a minimum of 15 feet. 3) Rear Yard: One-half of the building height as measured from each exterior wall. 4) Yards abutting off-site residential land uses: 50 feet. 5) Parcels with two frontages may reduce one front yard by 10 feet. D. MINIMUM YARDS AND BUFFERS (EXTERNAL) A. Land uses proposed on Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84): 50 50-foot setback, except that canopies for gas stations must maintain a 338--30- foot setback, provided no gas pumps or pump islands are located closer than 40 feet from the Davis Boulevard Right-Of-Way. A 25 25-foot landscape buffer, in accordance with Section 5.11 of this document, III-4 Words strucJ through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-147- 1/12/2016 9.B. and Division 2.4 of the Collier County Lund Development Code, shall be provided along the entire frontage of Davis Boulevard. B. Where both commercial and residential uses are developed in the commercial/residential tract, a minimum 20' wide type `C' landscape buffer with wall shall be provided between the two uses. Commercial buildings shall be separated from residential dwelling units by a minimum of 50'. E. MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES: Same as side yards. F. MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR COMMERCIAL: 35 feet ( irectly adjacent to the Saddlebrook Village PUD, or where a mixture of commercial and residential uses are developed within the C/R Tract. Zoned:35 feet Actual:45 feet 50 feet in aAll other areas when located greater than 50 feet from Saddlebrook Village PUD. Zoned:50 feet Actual:60 feet G. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: 1,000 square feet per principal structure, on the first finished floor. Kiosk vendor, concessions, and temporary or mobile sales structures are permitted to have a minimum floor area of 25 square feet, and are not subject to setback requirements set forth above. H. MAXIMUM GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA: 200,000 square feet. I. GAS STATION LOCATION RESTRICTION: Gasoline service stations, as provided for in Subsection 3.3.A.3)b. of this document may only be located east of the IMPUD project entrance. J. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: As required by Division 2.3 of in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of site development plan approval. K. OUTSIDE STORAGE: Outside storage is prohibited in thisDMPUD, with the exception that garden centers and covered storage of materials and products shall be permitted. L. ARCHITECTURAL UNIFORMITY: III-5 Words struelcthrough are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-148- 1/12/2016 9.B. Commercial development in this PUDMPUD shall have a common architectural theme for all structures. Guidance for the commonality of architecture may be derived from Division 2.8.Section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code, of--and may be unique to the -)MPUD in conformance with the Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center #9. Commercial development site design shall conform with the guidelines and standards of Division 2.8. Section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code and the Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center#9. M. CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE: One One (1) caretaker's residence shall be permitted for the commercial center or one of the commercial buildings, and sha{ within that structure. Exits required to comply with fire codes shall be perm • 3) Off street parking shall be as for a single family residence in accordance at the time of site development plan application. Parking for the caretaker's residences shall be in addition to any other required parking facilities. III-6 Words struekthrough are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-149- , 1/12/2016 9.B. 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (RESIDENTIAL) (TRACT"C/R") PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TOWNHOUSE TWO-FAMILY MULTI- SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE FAMILY DETACHED Minimum Lot Area 1.800 SF 2,625 SF 11/1, 3.190 SF 5.000 SF Minimum Lot Width 18 feet 35 feet 111/LA 31 50 Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 75 feet N/A 80 100 Min. Front Yard Setback*2 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 0 or 5 feet 0 or 5 feet 10 feet 0 or 10 feet*3 5 feet Min. Rear Yard Setback*4 15 feet 10 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 40 feet 40 feet 45 feet 30 feet 30 feet Actual 45 feet 45 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 1 Story—12' 'A the zoned Minimum Distance Between Structures*1 10 feet 2 Story—20' building 10 feet 10 feet height Floor Area Min. (S.F.),per unit 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 1.500 SF 1,500 SF Min.PUD Boundary Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 20 feet 20 feet � -i - 2i: ; aAr q!,+ u1f.15, _�.ro� , iris P,'..ks R.,_., wu L,,i, _. .I '� r...— .. _ rr....-. :I'. Min.Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet*1 0 feet*1 5 feet 5 feet Min.Rear Yard Setback*4 10 feet 5 feet 10 feet 3 feet 3 feet Min.PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Maximum Height*5 Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 35 feet 25 feet 25 feet Actual 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. *1 — Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0' where attached garages are provided and a 10' minimum separation is maintained,if detached. *2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 23'from a sidewalk. The minimum 20'setback for a residence may be reduced to 14'for a side-loaded or rear entry garage. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 14'. *3—Minimum separation between adiacent dwelling units shall be 10'. *4- Landscape Buffer Easements and/or Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within open space tracts or lake tracts and not be within a platted residential lot. Where a home site is adiacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts, the principal and accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero 10) feet where it abuts the easement/tract. *5—Privacy walls for zero lot line units may be constructed to a maximum height of 8'. Note:nothing in this MPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. III-7 Words strxek-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 1 Packet Page-150- 1/12/2016 9.B. SECTION IV INDUSTRIALBUSINESS PARK/OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA (TRACT"I/B/R") 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as Tract "1/B/R", IndustrialBusiness Park Development Area on Exhibit "A", PUDMPUD Master Plan. 4.2 MAXIMUM • ! -- '. - : -- • _-- ' • • - e - '.- _ INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT The 17t acre IndustrialBusiness Park Development Area (Tract "I/B/R"), shall not be developed with more than 250,000 square feet of industrial/business park uses or up to 250 dwelling units. A maximum of 250 dwelling units shall be permitted within the entire PUD. Instead of the IndustrialBusiness Park uses., dwelling units shall be permitted throughout the "I/B/R" area. The "IB/R" Tract shall not be developed with mixed use development consisting of residential development. The "I/B/R" Tract shall be developed entirely with either non- residential or residential uses only. 4.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses2 (Wholesale and storage uses shall not be permitted immediately adjacent to the 1-75 Right-of-Way): 1) Any business engaged in building construction as defined under Major Group 15 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 2) Any business engaged in construction —special trade contractors as defined under Major Group 17 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 3) Any business as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following categories: a. 521 -Lumber and other Building Materials Dealers; b. 523 - Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper stores; 2 Reference Executive Office of the President,Office of Management and Budget,Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition Iv-1 Words 6~k-through are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2019-0598) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-151- 1/12/2016 9.B. c. 525 -Hardware stores. 4) Any establishment selling prepared foods and drinks for consumption as defined under Industry Number 5812 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, not including fast foods, walk-up windows, and drive-through restaurants. 5) Establishments operating primarily in the field of real estate as defined under Major Group 65 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 6) Establishments operating primarily to provide business services as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual for the following Industry Numbers: a. 731 -Advertising; b. 733 - Mailing, Reproduction, Commercial Art and Photography, and Stenographic Services; c. 734 -Services to Dwellings and Other Buildings; d. 737 -Personnel Supply Services; e. 7382-Security Systems Services; f. 7384-Photofinishing Laboratories. 7) Establishments operating primarily to produce, distribute, and exhibit motion pictures as defined under Major Group 78 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 8) Establishments operating primarily to provide engineering, testing and business consulting for the following Industry Numbers: a. 871 -Engineering,Architectural,and Surveying Services; b. 8734-Testing Laboratories; c. 8748 -Business Consulting Services. 9) Residential dwelling units a. Multi-family b. Townhouse c. Two-family attached d. Single family(zero lot line) e. Single family detached IV-2 Words strueli-threugh are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-152- 1/12/20169.B. B. Accessory Uses Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: - 1) Parking facilities and Signage. 2) One caretaker's residence. 2) On-site recreational facilities, for residential only. Residential community recreation facilities located within the I/B/R tract shall be required to provide a minimum building setback of 30 feet if located adjacent to the perimeter of the PUD. An 8-foot wall shall be required when the recreational facility is within 50 feet of any residential structure located within the Saddlebrook PUD. Hours of operation for any outdoor facilities shall be from dawn to dusk. Lighting shall be shielded from adjoining properties and limited to bollard type lighting limited to the minimum height needed for security purposes but no greater than 12 feet in height. 3) Model homes and model sales centers. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIALBUSINESS PARK A. MINIMUM LOT AREA: 20,000 square feet. B. AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: 100 feet. e • • • - • • • • - • ' . - • . - - - - - - - :• ' - •__ _. - -. -. • - -= --- -. . limited to a 0.15 floor area ratio. Business Park land uses (as set forth in the . ' = I. _• - Shall not be limited by a floor area ratio. D.C. MINIMUM YARDS (INTERNAL): 1) Front Yard: 30 feet. 2) Side Yard: The sum total of the side yards shall be 20 percent of the lot width, not to exceed a maximum of 50 feet. This yard requirement may be apportioned between the side yards in any manner, except that neither side yard may be less than 10 feet. A zero lot line option may be used in a unified plan of development involving one or more lots under common ownership where the preceding yard requirements are met relative to the unified plan. 3) Rear Yard: 15 feet. 4) Yards abutting off-site residential land uses: 50 feet. 5) Parcels with two frontages may reduce one front yard by 10 feet. IV-3 Words stmely-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-153- 1/12/2016 9.B. &D. MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES: Same as side yards. F.E. MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 35 feet directly adjacent to the Saddlebrook Village PUD. 50 feet in all other areas. G:F. MAXIMUM GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA: 250,000 square feet. i-G. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: As required by Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of site development plan approval. I-H. OUTSIDE STORAGE: Outside storage is prohibited in this P-U-DMPUD, with the exception that garden centers and covered storage of materials and products shall be permitted. 3-:I. ARCHITECTURAL UNIFORMITY: Industrial/business park development in this UDMPUD shall have a common architectural theme for all structures. Guidance for the commonality of architecture shall be derived from Section 5.05.08 Division 2.8. of the Land Development Code, ep-and may be unique to the PUOMPUD in conformance with the Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center #9. Industrial/business park development site design shall conform with the guidelines and standards of Division 2.8. Section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code and the Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center#9. K. CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE: One (I) caretaker's residence shall be permitted for the industrial/business park development area, subject to the following: I) The residence shall be constructed as an integral part of the shopping center or one of the industrial/business park buildings, and shall be entered from within that structure. Exits required to comply with fire codes shall be per-ffiittedT 2) The caretakers' residence shall be an accessory use, and shall be for the exclusive use of the property owner, tenant, or designated employee operating or maintaining the industrial/business park facilities. 11Off street parking shall be as for a single family residence in accordance the time of site development plan application. Parking for the caretakorls IV-4 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-154- 1/12/2016 9.B. 4.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (RESIDENTIAL) (TRACT"I/I3/R"): PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TOWNHOUSE TWO-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE ZERO LOT LINE FAMILY DETACHED Minimum Lot Area 1,800 SF 2.625 SF N/A 3,190 SF 5.000 SF Minimum Lot Width 18 feet 35 feet LILA 31 50 Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 75 feet N/A 80 100 Min.Front Yard Setback*2 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 0 or 5 feet 0 or 5 feet 10 feet 0 or 10 feet*3 5 feet Min.Rear Yard Setback*4 15 feet 10 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 40 feet 40 feet 45 feet 30 feet 30 feet Actual 45 feet 45 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 1 Story-12' 'A the zoned Minimum Distance Between Structures*1 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 2 Story—20' building height Floor Area Min. (S.F.),per unit 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 1,500 SF 1,500 SF Min.PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet Min. Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 4 1 _ ^ 4nrir'n*3.'r 9ga7 ..W.""n' K 7 7:777:71-7,"R72 m Fry"L 1 nr ,75 t r s 'r 7 1 A:14k J .[*mr# a �7 :'"�74 � c14 , �" �1�T� ��. �"tt a r, +�, , 4„4 Mr r<� a� ,;,41.14„:,:,-,,,',;., -y '2'1-4--t-2=j-k2-E''-. .. 9 ._ s4 m .s o-� .i, �.0 r',7 -4*, . as. i,,;.;`''” ��u;;og, 5..',rb_, 1.*Ci'^fit a,'!.A i.a,.a�,�.i,�li Min.Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet*1 0 feet*1 5 feet 5 feet Min.Rear Yard Setback*4 10 feet 5 feet 10 feet 3 feet 3 feet Min.PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Min.Preserve Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Maximum Height*5 Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 35 feet 25 feet 25 feet Actual 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. *1 — Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0' where attached garages are provided and a 10' minimum separation is maintained,if detached. *2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 23'from a sidewalk. The minimum 20'setback for a residence may be reduced to 14'for a side-loaded or rear entry garage. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 14'. *3—Minimum separation between adiacent dwelling units shall be 10'. *4 -Landscape Buffer Easements and/or Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within open space tracts or lake tracts and not be within a platted residential lot. Where a home site is adiacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts, the principal and accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero (0) feet where it abuts the easement/tract. *5—Privacy walls for zero lot line units may be constructed to a maximum height of 8'. I Note:nothing in this MPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. IV-5 Words struelt-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-155- 1/12/2016 9.B. SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with final site development plans, final subdivision plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this P-4444MPUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the Land Development Code of Division 3.2 shall apply to this project even if the land within the -DMPUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. • The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the Master Development Plan and the regulations of the I }OMPUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications • as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor or assignee in title to the developer is bound by any commitments within this agreement. These commitments may be assigned or delegated to a master association to be created by the developer. Upon assignment or delegation, the developer shall be released from responsibility for the commitments. 53 PUDMPUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Exhibit "A", PUDMPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries, or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final, and may be varied at anytime at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of the Land B. All necessary casements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to areas in the project. V-1 Words e through are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-156- 1/12/2016 9.B. East Gateway PUD Master Plan upon written request of the developer. 1) The following limitations shall apply to such requests: a. The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the East Gateway PUD document. pursuant to Subsection 2.7.3.5.1. of the Collier County Land Development Code. uses, and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land uses, 2) The following shall be considered minor changes or refinements, subject to the limitations of-Subsection 7.3.C.1) of this document: mitigation features as a result of regulatory agency review and permitting. There may be no overall decrease in preserve area. such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water -• - c. Internal realignment of vehicular circulation patterns. 3) Minor changes and refinements, as described above, shall be reviewed by Ordinances and regulations prior to the Administrator's consideration for V-2 Words struek-through are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-157- 1/12/2016 9.B. '1) Approval by the Administrator of a minor change or refinement may site development plan approval, however, the Administrator, or his designee's approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the miner change or refinement 5.4 _ - . ! _ . e ! . . _ ! ' _ ONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION A. This PUD is subject to the Sunset Provisions of Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. However, given the subject PUD'3 location on a "currently deficient" State roadway facility, that has no programmed improvement schedule, The time period described by that Section 2.7.3.4 shall not run until roadway capacity has been allocated to the PUD. B. An annual PUD monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6 of the Land Development Code. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is BC Naples Investments, LLP, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 5.5 TRANSPORTATION The development of this PUDMPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control devices used must be in accordance with the Standards ■ - - Florida Statutes Chapter 316 Uniform Traffic Control Law. ✓ - Manual as adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT), as V-3 Words struck-through are deleted;words underlined are added East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-158- 1/12/2016 9.B. amended, as required by Florida Statutes Chapter 316 Uniform Traffic Control Law. C. Arterial level street lighting must be provided at all development points of ingress and egress. Said lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent Certificate of Occupancy (CO). D. External and internal improvements determined by Collier County Transportation staff to he essential to the safe ingress and egress to the development will Rot be considered for impact fee credits. Said improvements Road. Impact Fees will be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance otherwise approved by the Cellier County hoard of Commissioners (CCBCC). F. Accc3s as shown on the PUD Master Development Plan is conceptual in nature and subject to change for consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC), _ -- -- State H ghway- System Policy, as amended. Median access and control will remain under Collier County's, and the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's) authority, as may be applicable. These agencies each reserve the right respective staffs to have an adverse affec : : ' , : -: - - - - the public. These include but are not limited to safety concerns, operational circulation issues, roadway capacity problems, etc. right in/right out condition. Neither will the existence, or lack of; a future median opening be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against Collier County, and/or the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), by the developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s). L. Frontage, midpoint and/or reverse frontage interconnections) may be required by Collier County Transportation staff as a condition of site development plan 1-A. The developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s), will be responsible for the proportionate cost of any and all traffic signal(s), at any and all development entrance(s), when determined warranted and approved by Collier County. When meted,upon the completion of the installation, inspection, bum-in period, and final approval/acceptance of any and all traffic signal(s), said traffic signal(s) will be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County. and will then be operated and maintained by Collier County or FDOT for operations V-4 Words struck-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page -159- 1/12/2016 9.B. and mantenance . .. e : : . Any negotiations relevant to "fair share" payment(s), or reimburscment(s), from any and all other devoloper(s)/ncighbori.ng property owncr(s), that directly benefit from said roadways. Bicyel-ist and pedestpian travel ways will be separated from vehicular by Collier County Transportation staff. K. The developers) shall provide any and all site related transportation improvcmcnt(s) including, but not limited to, any and all necessary turn lane(s) improvemen (s) at the project cntrance(s) pri • . -- •- -- -- - -- permanent Certificate of Occupancy. Said improvement(s) aro considered site related, and therefore do not qualify for impact fcc credits: When said turn lane L-713. All accesses and roadways not located within Collier County's and/or Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's) rights-of-way will be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s). M. Joint access and frontage roads shall be established specifically when frontage is Access Management Policy, as amended, and the Florida Department of Policy, as amended. N. Access points and median openings shall be designed to provide adequate turning radii and accommodate the U Turn movement of commercial vehicles. P. The Davis Boulcvard/S.R. 81 Project Development and Environmental Study prepared by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) identified that additional right of way required for the 6 laning improvements, between Radio Road and Collier Boulcvard/CR 951, would be obtained from lands south of the �. • . + . • Transportation (FOOT) find additional right of way necessary beyond the proposed right of way needs, reservation of right of way for dedication for preliminary subdivision plat or site development plan, whichever occurs first. The V-5 Words struck though are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-160- 1/12/2016 9.B. buffers/easements or other facilities may be designated within the Davis -- Q. The development will not be permitted to proceed until such time as improvements are made to Davis Boulevard/SR 81 and Collier Boulevard/CR 951, within the•• •- - -- - -- - . _. _ • . _ •- : :. - . _ • • .. . to Davis Boulevard/SR. 81 and Collier Boulevard/CR 951 and study data supports within the area of impact as a result of said improvements. C. The project shall be limited to a maximum trip generation to 927 unadjusted PM Peak Hour, two way trips. 5.6 WATER MANAGEMENT governed by the following conditions: A. Detailed paving, grading and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Planning Services Staff for review and approval. No construction permits shall with the approved plans is granted by Planning Services Staff. accordance with the Collier County Land Develepment Code and South Florida Water Managornent District Rules. C. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with •- - - - - _ _. a- _-- - - - that excavation for water management features shall be allowed within twenty (20') feet from side, rear, or abutting property lines, with side, rear, or abutting property lines fenced. Lakes closer than 50 feet to the property line must be properly fenced. •the criteria established in Section 2.1.7.3. of the-Collier County Land Development Code. V-6 Words stfuelt-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-161- 1/12/2016 9.B. • F. A South Florida Water Management Permit must be obtained prior to any site 5.7-6 UTILITIES - -- - - • - -- _ - - - - - _ • accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97 17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulatiens. P . _•-. • - - A. At time of subdivision platting or first Site Development Plan, a 20' wide non- exclusive easement will be provided by owner along the western boundary of the project to the CCWSD for water and wastewater conveyance along with construction and access easements. This easement may be combined with landscape buffer and drainage easements in a manner approved by Collier County. 5.87 ENVIRONMENTAL The development of this PUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and P. • - protective covenants per. or similar to, Section 704.06, Florida Statutes. C. The petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish —W!ilddli€e Service (USF&WS) an - . •.. -' • - • - Commi:s'ion (FWC) regarding potential impacts to "listed species". Where V-7 Words stmektlFrough are deleted,•words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-162- 1/12/2016 9.B. protected spccies are ebscrvcd on site, a Habitat Management Plan for those - - -- - - - - - - • - -- __ • - _ . _- . - - E. The Preserve associated with the PUD's westerly boundary shall be no less than 116 feet in width. 5.9 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES .- - - -- 5.10 SIGNS All signs shall be in accordance with Division 2.5 of Collier County's Land Development Code, and the Activity Center 119 Interchange Master Plan. 5.448 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS,BERMS,FENCES AND WALLS throughout the East Gateway PUD, except in pre3orv- : -: . -- - . _ _. . shall apply: A. Landscape berms shall have the following maximum side slopes: 1) Grassed berms 3: 1 2) Ground covered berms 3:1 3) Rip Rap berms 1:1 Structural walled berms may be vertical. C. Fence or wall maximum height: 9 feet, as measured from the finished grade of finished grade shall be considered no greater than 18 inches above the crown. on a perimeter landscape berm. In these-cases, the fence or wall shall not exceed V-8 Words struelc-through are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-163- 1/12/2016 9.B. 6 feet in height from the top of been elevation with an average side slope of greater than 4: 1 (i.e. 3:1, 2:1, 1:1,or vertical). D. Landscape buffering and/or bcrming shall be installed along the project's frontage on 175. E. Pedestrian sidewalks, bike paths, water management facilities and structures may Development Code. 1=A. For commercial and/or industrial development Aa 25-foot wide "Type D" buffer, as set forth in Section 2.1.7.1. of the Land Development Code, including a fence/wall, shall be installed parallel with, and along the 14 DMPUD's westerly boundary, south of the Preserve, extending south to the PUDMPUD Property boundary._For residential development, buffering shall be per the Collier County Land Development Code or this PUD. 5.12 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF STREET PARKING AREAS •. ■• • , - 5.9 MISCELLANEOUS A. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. V-9 Words meek-hrough are deleted;words underlined are added. East Gateway MPUD(PL2014-0548) Revised 12-03-2015 Packet Page-164- 1/12/2016 9.B. 4 a, /NrFRsrq r .SFWMD' �,S0.?S) 25'WIDE LANDSCAPE N .CREATED .. .® W BUFFER PER LDC -PRESERVE W W W ' i , DEVIATIONS: '4-20'WIDE TYPE'D'BUFFER _ SEE SECTION 2.13 OF THE PUD I o I 300' , ORDINANCE - I SCALE: 1" = 300' U ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN I ,� tt \ _ og TRACT I/B/R 2. RIGHT-OF WAY WIDTH n Om INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS PARK OR - CO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I 3. SIDEWALKS -0 c © © 4. PRESERVATION STANDARDS (bp m - oIW D mIC D m , DI I O 7 ZONED: PUD ° "' ZONED: I-75/ALLIGATOR USE: MULTI-FAMILY I r''' ALLEY CPUD RESIDENTIAL g rn I USE: UNDEVELOPED, o -I HOTEL AND m - I RESTAURANTS - W m PRESERVES:® I T TRACT "C/R" W XI COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL T REQUIRED:7.72±ACRES* I DEVELOPMENT m (30.87±ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION xi © © 2 I X 25%=7.72±ACRES) 1 -o C •THE ENTIRE 7.72±ACRES OF PRESERVE O WILL BE PROVIDED OFF-SITE. Im � Z L1P — — I a+ , co 0 I 25'WIDE TYPE'D' BUFFER NOTES _ — 25'WIDE TYPED' BUFFER — — — 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR DAVIS BOULEVARD(100' ROW) MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY SITE SUMMARY j PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE, ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO TRACT"C/R" 20±ACRES(200,000 SF/598 DU') MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP TRACT"I/B/R" 17±ACRES(250,000 SF/598 DU') OR PLAT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE TOTAL PROJECT AREA 37±ACRE WITH THE LDC. *A MAXIMUM OF 250 UNITS ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE MPUD EAST GATEWAY MPUD '01` ®GradyMinor 0.G.PUyM11IP mu F.N. 550,amo Del Itr Jo : RPUID o. SPI,sFbIWm 39131 EXHIBIT A ""a Chit Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners . Landscape Architects MASTER PLAN 1111 NA1616: Cert.of MAILED 0005151 Cart of A.N.LBP0a5151 6.11.e1.LC 2e0002E6 REVISED 07/08/2015 y'°'� """"°'• Bonita Springs:239.997.1144 ,v.w.Gree,Miaor.cnm Fort Myer.:239.690.9380 SHEET 1 OF 1 \\OGM.LOCAL\FILES\PLANNING\PM)- PLANNING\EGPUDA-EAST GATEWAY PUD AMEND\DRAWINGS\EGPUOA EX41511 A- MASTER PUN(REY6).DWG 10/2/2015 12:04 PM Packet Page-165- 1/12/2016 9.B. __c107/51at, —x Noxi-. _,__________-yn___. -_._« __» m ■ - # A - _ § \§, |�| \ \ \ | ■ g 2 2 I- _ e \ ) f -I 0 / j $ I & ® in ® � \ E 0 p � � - § v) 0 G A ___.7. . e\ � / § k z 8E & 3 o » - >- • . zu � / § k � �\ . . \ k $ k § % § a §• / § \ g > / a�oo 1\1111 .o — ^ a 2 - -- \ 1-0-...0.,,,..„__________,„) k § Co & § ° § | ^ d c \ • \ ka• {| % H \ ~ _ �1§ 5 u / : ! . \ \ y / . I| i �� § | / \ _ - - !! { % \ ' ? '_k E- au � § \ / [§ ° f - . . \ £§ § ° eZ 2g1 '- - `| \ \ \ IN .2' t- Packett Pa g-166- . - 1/12/2016 9.B. _rm,,,zim _,_,x -,_,r_\_*gym_m_--_+_.-__ ate ,« \ I . � " k< P' :I,| ■ || ® � | & — / §,- - (=w [ \ y \ _ �/ = z / / Z 3 } R \ _ < 0 ) In el 3A00 *A ,« / / 3 § $ _ - - \ \ \ § 0o ^ ° ^ \E = 3 ox zu = c gs >. oto % @ \ �l xw § © ' . wE 2 Iw s ) I -/ � / w � z & 7) zz 2 _ \ \ 0 - G E C s / } § »- § $ y v ! I , !K {• ! \ \ - - &� J| ¥ y k§ )� t. \ / [ | � \/ g / ) § !| \ \ . { } \ r§ � I § 0 2 22 § Z k§ ƒ-60 r ` . . `� § .| : �§ \` y . \ °C \ . § % -- - - v \\ y \ \ 3 Z)- \ 7/ / e� — — / CI !, \ § °$ 0 a n Packet Pa g-167 . I AGENDA lTE..1 12/2016 9.B. Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION ZOMNG SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: AUGUST 20,2015 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20140000548: EAST GATEWAY MPUD PROPERTY OWNER, APPLICANT& AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agents: BC Naples Investments, LLP Richard D.Yovanovich,Esq. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester, P.A. Naples,FL 34105 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples,FL 34103 D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Q. Grady Minor&Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs,FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The East Gateway Planned Unit Development (PUD) currently permits commercial and industrial/business park uses. The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to Ordinance Number 03-11 to permit a maximum of 250 residential dwelling units to the PUD in the commercial Development Area or as an alternative in the Industrial/Business Park Development Area, creating a Mixed Use PUD (MPUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is 37.35± acres in size and is located south of Interstate 75, north of Davis Boulevard, east of the Saddlebrook Village PUD and west of I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD. The site is accessed from Davis Boulevard and is within the boundaries of Activity Center Number 9. The site is currently undeveloped. (See location map on the following page.) PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The East Gateway PUD was approved on February 25, 2003 as a mixed use project with a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses and a East Gateway MPUD,PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 1 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-168- 1/12/2016 9.B. N NIMJ (tc6 1T3) 02NA31f108 M3m00 • n. Use To) aevnamae ix= z e ."7"..' 7"..."-.' � I-- 1 \ 1 i °! 1 o. 0 h0 t y 0 / :_g a Q a , , '1 " i "' di k 2 ' I 1 1 I 1 } tY t it ' i' tl y .4 r = 1 t 1. ,;yit:i:ai<<<: i�'•' t 1ep:};L•?::3}}ii�:::1� atc 1 ilit::•::i} !:'iii% ii IC1 !:iii:iii:ii i4!;;!;*:'•;*:::::iii:Ipii:itii:ii:ikl$:!:i:::},} t-.vat E:yi Hjti:iiS'E::1?;::i:i•:,:i:ipi:P 'i:�:•.:ii,aa:.:::iNii-,•iiii:i::;; .•:::;,•:i \/ :.^•:;:.:;Y tfl�iit;i[it::::�:.:aP:::.�:•:::::al.t i�:iY:i. ,';iii:i,:i'�':::::•:;;'�� :ji:;3:::;iii::iia-.Y;a :.:::•Y:::.i;g1Y::i :•,+•Y:::t::}:::i::::::,:-.;Y:.:. i}i a:::i:::i:::iiir•;i•i::i:�:::1::::::ii::iii:ii: i ::#:::.:::t:8:;.�o-o-o-o-a i3:::iP}::::,„,,:�j .,i..•,:,1::::.-o-...::;y-.•.:o-•.:..i-•-..:t:.::': °i:;!i:$:if:ii iilaiii;:i::;ii g,„„,:E::::;Y;::..,,,aY,.Y>:.:�•y;iii:.Y:::::;::::o-;„_.,. ,, 4 ;.t.•.i 1:tii:i;�::i:i:::�::}::.i:Nr::::i::;��::::i:t::i;ilii:: :.i:::::.i 1 � iiiE'ii::i:i:ii : .... ::i}Y;:ii:iii:: ,i,i:i:ii': i::ii••':iyi ...:..:.....:............:...t.l....... .1 X'yt:iii Fiit::i:::�:::::::if•i::::::::::9:i:::i:iF::::;:::::::i::iii:i iigg i•:::i::Y :.:•:,,,..,..,,.•:•}i:: ::i:ti: YMNR SIREEf y P O A r 'V a m ® "� - o CI I CO 2 C--)?till. 111:11Ealll`` ”Ell 1 IN MIMI ” 0 Tr. WHO ME -� WHO d N--\< 4141” . "'0 W texwae ,end 1 a ,u1OH Q M a. 4# z p k O a, s§ e. m w I a. a. w° \ I Q O ,S 1 0 1 / l O a,vnsvwe nOD 1196'tl'at ■ aavn > 4E , 11.fir AVIIII n k' L ,! ffi �'•� 1 1M0NB310Q1$ tl I z o i c n 0 El i tl3 & ¢ g 111 1.111,4011r1 g R W U w ,tb 3 Ili ; �\ : 3 m six �� o 3 _ � � , , y n °d 1 >vQ 11>. Qy: �!g� 1 pv all gg oavn3lrroe -lb7 Ei Y 0 1 � E It a; F� auvn:Tnoe Ml Yl 11.-". 1 vwexvav 11 I 1 Packet Page-169- `� j 1/12/2016 9.B. maximum of 250,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for industrial uses. The proposed amendment would add a maximum of 250 dwelling units and residential development standards along with five deviations. The resulting project may be a mix of commercial and industrial, commercial and residential, or all residential. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Interstate 75 ROW, across which is the undeveloped Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD; density: 10 DU/A. East: The partially developed I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD; a maximum of 265,000 square feet of commercial. South: Davis Boulevard ROW; across which is the partially developed Westport Commerce Center MPUD; a maximum of 35.0,000 square feet of commercial and 218,000 square feet of industrial. West: Multifamily residences; zoned Saddlebrook Village PUD; density: 12.99. il �I +" •. :,,,-- t� bj „i, t _Viio�rA CMpS £ l Y '4,,,,, I site FI ,�-11,, , .., 4''.. „ ' - Y L'�,• :l d' ��I !'1 1 far' , ' it � e = l i ' a fir ., 1• I') d � Y y F h ( e I y fA X ,iL, P f , , - lt 'f:, 41 Pii t C tr l ✓ I d- , , vy, m, lit,, , , .,, ,, i 1 1„,"-,7,,, ,, tk, :, , . , , 0,,,7 ,.e .,,,5.,,,...1.,,,,..' i fit- , ar �,,, .016 Sy s+041"`W:1.z�"i"-- '. .. gym. r '"p'r.,:..._.,.11 4 II sf 4 I ' Aerial.Photo(CCPA) East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-P120140000548 Page 3 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page -170- 1/12/2016 9.B. i1 uu • =uI n!�_ ''N• w r v- -;k miniii niir . 111 ► ' III III 1 I' mga Is GS Wfl_ 17:M7i let tuw Fv, !K_� L,R�' wrw III I 0 PUD iikottr cue lc ao..TH ram ill i . a 1 _ pm, o a I L__, . GOLLII/oRWM NM tit P1011111a UMW e..1.:,, '4147, I MIR INICIPPIAL VAN , RI MIIR ► Wan r IIMI }-.rm '.�it� �� , , '�'d -.— �t _._ .» I 1- • ,, , t. A� RN ADM . 1 , 4" flat 3W a WAS b s i Iv J roam ' to R. .4 .Aks 41...,4 'al ••■■,.• ft #' ,:14' " (Activity Center Number 9—East Gateway MPUD Highlighted in Red) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The East Gateway PUD was determined to be consistent with the GMP at the time of the original rezone. Staff reviewed the proposed amendment to determine if the petition can be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the FLUE of the GMP. Relevant to this petition, this designation allows: residential development (variety of unit types) at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre(DU/A), including associated accessory uses; and, commercial uses as allowed in the C-1 through C-5 zoning districts. Industrial and business park (a mix of commercial and East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 4 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-171- 1/12/2016 9.B. industrial uses) uses were formerly allowed in this quadrant of this Interchange Activity Center but are no longer allowed. Eligible density and uses are not entitlements. The existing East Gateway PUD allows commercial, business park and industrial uses. When this PUD was approved in 2003, the FLUE allowed all three use categories in this quadrant of the Interchange Activity Center but now no longer allows industrial and business park uses in this quadrant. The proposed PUD retains all of the existing uses—staff interprets the industrial uses as being consistent with the FLUE via FLUE Policy 5.1,similar to FLUE Policies 5.12 and 5.13 —and adds residential uses at a maximum density of 6.69 DU/A(250 DUs)• The FLUE provides that: The factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a project, or portion thereof, within an Activity Center, are as follows: (each factor is followed by staff comment/analysis in [bold text]) a. Rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. [This is a PUD and comprises 37.35 acres.] b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. [Not addressed in this PUDA but was addressed at time of original approval in 2003; this PUDA does not add or change commercial uses or industrial/business park uses.] c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. [Not addressed in this PUDA but was addressed at time of original approval in 2003; this PUDA does not add or change commercial uses or industrial/business park uses.] d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. [Not addressed in this PUDA but was addressed at time of original approval in 2003; this PUDA does not add or change commercial uses or industrial/business park uses.] e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. [Comprehensive Planning defers this analysis and determination to the respective appropriate staff, e.g. Transportation Planning,Public Utilities, etc.] f. Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. [Not addressed in this PUDA but was addressed at time of original approval in 2003; this PUDA does not add or change commercial uses or industrial/business park uses. However, residential uses are added which may potentially be incompatible with commercial uses approved in the I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD to the east; proposed setbacks in this PUPA for residential uses do not include greater separation requirements from abutting commercial development and the abutting CPUD does not include greater separation requirements when abutting residential development.] g. Natural or man-made constraints. [The only known natural constraint is a required preserve area—but this is true of all naturally vegetated sites.] East Gateway MPUD,PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 5 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-172- 1/12/2016 9.B. h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning defers this analysis and determination to Zoning Services staff. See Analysis: Zoning Review] i. Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning defers this analysis and determination to Transportation Planning staff. See Analysis: Transportation Review] j. Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site,as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. [Comprehensive Planning defers this analysis and determination to Transportation Planning staff. See Analysis: Transportation Review] k. Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting projects. [An interconnection to the I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD to the east is depicted on Exhibit A,PUD Master Plan. The Saddlebrook Village PUD to the west is fully developed.] 1. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. [This LDC requirement is applicable except as provided for in PUD Section 4.4J.] Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 states: "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses." Comprehensive Planning generally defers this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes this PUDA proposes to add residential uses on the C, Commercial, tract - which allows some high intensity uses generally deemed incompatible with residential development- but there is no provision to only develop all residential or all commercial uses on the C tract, rather a mix of residential and nonresidential uses would be allowed on the C tract without restriction. (Activity Centers allow a variety of land uses including C-1 through C-5 commercial uses and residential uses; however, this doesn't mean all such uses would be compatible with one another. Typically, mixed use development is limited to C-1, C-2 and some C-3 commercial uses.) Also, the proposed residential uses may potentially be incompatible with commercial uses approved in the I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD to the east; proposed setbacks in this PUDA for residential uses do not include greater separation requirements from abutting commercial development and the abutting CPUD does not include greater separation requirements when abutting residential development. And, in the I/B/R tract,it appears that I/B development is only required to provide a greater setback, and is only limited to a lesser building height, when abutting residential development external to this PUD rather than also from residential development on the C/R tract within this PUD. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 6 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page -173- 1/12/2016 9.B. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Davis Blvd., classified as an arterial road'in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [As Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, only depicts one access to Davis Blvd., access to all parcels within the PUD would have to be by internal road(s).] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [This PUD fronts on Davis Blvd. and backs up to I-75. To the west are two developed residential projects and a preserve area (within Saddlebrook Village PUD). An interconnection to the commercial PUD to the east(I-75/Alligator Alley PUD)is depicted on the PUD Master Plan and remains unchanged by this PUDA.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [This PUDA proposes to add residential use (variety of DU types), as well as accessory recreational uses, on both the C and I/B tracts. The proposed Commercial/Residential Development Area tract could develop with all residential uses or all non-residential uses or a mix of commercial/residential uses. The proposed Industrial/Business Park or Residential Development Area tract could develop with all non-residential uses or all residential uses but does not allow mixed use. The PUDA includes no on-site preserve area but does include a ±2.5-acre recreated wetland. As to walkable communities, the PUDA provides for sidewalks on both sides of streets if developed with non-residential uses or mixed use (Exhibit C, cross-section for non-residential and mixed use, depicts sidewalks on both sides of street; Deviation #3 provides for sidewalks on only one side but references cross section Exhibits B and C, and a 4/7/15 conversation with agent confirms sidewalks are to be provided on both sides of street for non-residential and mixed use). However,Exhibit B and Deviation #3 provide for sidewalks on only one side of street for residential uses. This PUDA would allow up to 250 DUs, and the PUD is located within an Activity Center proximate to extensive commercial development that offers shopping/service opportunities and potential employment; staff continues to advocate for sidewalks on both sides of street for residential development.] East Gateway MPUD,PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 7 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-174- 1/12/2016 9.B. PUD Document Review: 1. Section 2.13.3: Staff supports deletion of this sidewalk deviation — and corresponding modification of Exhibit B to depict sidewalks on both sides of street. [It is acknowledged the petitioner disagrees with staff and that the hearing bodies will arbitrate this issue.] 2. Section III: For mixed use development, Staff recommends limiting commercial uses to those permitted uses in Sec. 3.3 that are permitted in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. 3. Sections III and IV: For residential only development, consider providing greater separation requirements from non-residential uses within this PUD and in the abutting I- 75/Alligator Alley CPUD. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUDA may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. However,staff requests PUD revisions as noted above. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: Transportation Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found it consistent with the Transportation Element. However, Transportation-Pathways Staff find that the Justification provided for Deviation 3 is insufficient and recommends that the Deviation is not approved. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME because of the size of the preserve to be provided. Specifically,this can be found consistent as a deviation may be requested in accordance with Policy 6.1.1 (13) as discussed below. However, staff does not support the requested deviation as a matter of policy.A minimum of 7.72 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD Amendment. The applicant is requesting all of the 7.72 acres of required native vegetation(preserve)be satisfied off-site through a deviation. For properties with a preserve requirement of less than one acre, a property owner may request that the onsite preserve requirement be satisfied off site if the total onsite preserve requirement is less than two acres (LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.0. Deviations from this LDC provision may be requested through the PUD rezone process. The applicable GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element(COME)Policies are provided below. CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10)The County shall adopt land development regulations that allow for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention requirement to be satisfied by a monetary payment, land donation that contains native vegetative communities equal to or of a higher priority as described in Policy 6.1.1 (4) than the land being impacted, or other appropriate method of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program, as required by the land development regulations. The monetary payment shall be used to purchase and manage native vegetative communities off-site. The land development regulations shall provide criteria to determine when this alternative will be considered. The criteria will be based upon the following provisions: a. The amount, type,rarity and quality of the native vegetation on site; b. The presence of conservation lands adjoining the site; c. The presence of listed species and consideration of Federal and State agency technical assistance; d. The type of land use proposed,such as, but not limited to, affordable housing; East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 8 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-175- 1/12/2016 9.B. e. The size of the preserve required to remain on site is too small to ensure that the preserve can remain functional;and f Right of Way acquisitions for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right of way acquisition area. The land development regulations shall include a methodology to establish the monetary value, land donation, or other appropriate method of compensation to ensure that native vegetative communities not preserved on-site will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site. CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13) The County may grant a deviation to the native vegetation retention requirements of sub-sections 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 of this Policy, and shall adopt land development regulations to set forth the process for obtaining a deviation. The regulations shall allow for the granting of a deviation by the appropriate review board after a public hearing, and the granting of a deviation administratively The County shall consider the amount and type of native vegetation and the presence of listed species in determining whether the granting of a deviation requires a public hearing, or may be granted administratively. The County may grant a deviation if: a. County, Federal or State agencies require that site improvements be located in areas which result in an inability to meet the provisions of this Policy, or b. On or off-site environmental conditions are such that the application of one or more provisions of this Policy is not possible or will result in a preserve area of lesser quality, or c. The strict adherence to these provisions will not allow for the implementation of other Plan policies that encourage beneficial land uses. GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13) was adopted by Ord. 07-16 on 1-25-07, based upon the 2004 EAR. Staff who worked on the 2004 EAR based GMP amendments believe the "beneficial land uses" language allows latitude in application/interpretation, and that such uses might include uses such as affordable housing, essential services, Research &Technology Parks, business parks, and other uses that the BCC determines at the time to be beneficial (a/k/a desired/needed/wanted). Previous requests for other projects/properties for deviations from the criteria in the LDC for offsite retention of native vegetation have occurred through the PUD rezone and GMP amendment process, and have been for sites/preserves heavily impacted with exotic vegetation with no adjoining offsite preserves or undeveloped areas. Since they were very close to the offsite provisions contained in the LDC,their requests were supported by staff. Off-site retention of native vegetation for preserves greater than one acre, or two acres for properties zoned commercial, does not meet the offsite preserve criteria in the LDC, developed through stakeholders. On site preserves are beneficial land uses valued by the community and staff recommends not amending the PUD to allow for such a larger deviation. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC 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 bases to support the CCPC's East Gateway MPUD,PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 9 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-176- 1/12/2016 9.B. 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 analyses. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The property owner is requesting to allow 7.72 acres of preserve to be satisfied off site. Pursuant to Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,the project requires review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since a deviation to environmental standards of the LDC is being requested. PUD History and proposed PUD Amendment The existing PUD includes a 9.34 acre preserve (25% of 37.35 acres) as the entire site was considered native vegetation at the time of the original 2003-11 PUD ordinance. The site has not yet been developed and is still fully vegetated. The Review 1 submittal by the applicant for the PUD amendment proposed reducing the native vegetation onsite from 37.35 to 11.53 acres to result in a 2.88 preserve requirement. Several Collier County environmental staff visited the site to ascertain the amount of native vegetation that currently exists on site and determined that over 30 acres of the site qualifies as native vegetation. Therefore, at the Review 2 submittal, the applicant acquiesced and adjusted the native vegetation existing on site to 30.87 acres, resulting in a proposed reduction of the existing PUD preserve from 9.34 to 7.72 acres for the PUDA. In addition, the applicant requested a deviation at this submittal to take 4.92 of the 7.72 acres off- site. The Review 3 submittal revised the deviation to request the entire 7.72 acres be satisfied off-site. Please note that the 2.5 acre SFWMD created preserve shown on the master plan and as stated in section 2.11 of the PUD document, is a re-created preserve intended to meet requirements of other review agencies and is not credited toward Collier County native vegetation preservation requirements. Deviation #4 is being sought from LDC section 3.05.07.H.1.£ to allow the entire 7.72 acre preserve to be satisfied off-site. Staff does not support the request for deviation for the following reasons: • The size of the deviation is unprecedented - the difference between the one acre in the LDC and 7.72 acres being requested to be taken offsite. The applicant is requesting the deviation to 3.05.07.H.111 (d), which allows for certain preserves less than one acre in size to be satisfied offsite. To date,the largest deviation approved was to allow for a 1.36 acre preserve to be taken offsite for a residential PUD. Therefore, the deviation was for 0.36 acres above the one acre allowed by the LDC. • The preserve shown on the existing approved PUD (9.34 acres) connects to two preserves to the adjacent residential development to the west and provides a buffer. Further, there is also a third connection to the mitigation area on the east side of the property. Therefore,the existing preserve is viable and functional. Staff does not agree with the justification provided by the applicant. The following is the applicant's justification followed by staff's response in italics and why staff will not be supporting the deviation request: East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 10 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-177- 1/12/2016 9.B. • The applicant is stating that"more than 50%of the site acreage is exotic infested." The Native Vegetation (LDC 3.05.07.A.1.) existing on site shows 30.87 acres of native canopy coverage in the 37.35 acre site as indicated in PUD section 2.11 and as shown on the Native Habitat Map provided by the environmental consultant (Environmental Supplement). As part of the deviation request, the applicant is actually challenging how the LDC defines native vegetation because there is exotic vegetation in the understory. Challenging a definition in the LDC is not justification for a deviation, • The applicant states "no listed species have been identified on the property." The 7.72 acre preserve provides an area for movement for non-listed species. • The applicant states "the property is located in an Interchange Activity Center, which permit a wide range of land uses including intensive industrial uses including manufacturing, warehousing and distribution." The primary reason for this PUDA is to add a residential component. Residential development has higher preservation standards and regulations have remained in place to keep preserves related to residential developments. In addition, due to the size of the preserve, a functional and viable preserve can exist in an Interchange Activity Center especially when it adjoins other preserves. One of the key issues being decided with this deviation is whether urban preserves provide value and if the decision-makers would like to continue to see preserves above one acre remain within the urban area. When the off-site vegetation retention section was added to the LDC in 2010,the stakeholders included the LDC criteria that smaller preserves, less than one acre, can be satisfied offsite. A deviation as large as being requested was not contemplated. It is staffs position that the request for such a large deviation should not be granted. It is staff's recommendation that applicant provide a proposal to include a majority of the required preserve onsite. Stipulations: • In the event that all or some of the preserve is allowed to be satisfied offsite, the applicant has advised they are donating land to another government agency other than Collier County. Staff stipulates that the land being donated cannot be used for mitigation to other agencies. Transportation Review: Transportation Staff reviewed the PUD and found the Level of Service acceptable. However, Transportation Staff recommends that Deviation 2 is not approved. Zoning Review: The Applicant wishes to add residential density to the existing PUD — 250 dwelling units, 6.69 dwelling units per acre — and dimensional standards for those units. The subject site is within an Interchange Activity Center (Number 9) and is therefore entitled to request up to 16 dwelling units per acre. Staff supports the addition of the residences. The GMP provides Interchange Activity Centers as places for relatively high-density residential. Staff, however, cannot support two of the requested deviations. Please refer to the Deviation Discussion on page 15. In addition, Staff has concerns about internal compatibility if the project develops as a mix of residential and commercial/industrial and external compatibility if residential is developed abutting the I-75 Alligator Alley CPUD. East Gateway MPUD,PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 11 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-178- 1/12/2016 9.B. FINDINGS OF FACT: This PUD Amendment qualifies as a Substantial Change under LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1.b "a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development." PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 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" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 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. Staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and believes that the addition of a residential component is a good use of a PUD within an Interchange Activity Center. The addition will not have a major effect on traffic and other infrastructure. 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. Unified control was established at the time of rezoning and continues through the present ownership. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that this amendment to add a residential component does not affect the PUD's consistency with the GMP, therefore, Staff is of the opinion that this petition may 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. The proposed change is the addition of a residential component. Staff believes that with the approval of this amendment there may be compatibility issues between the proposed residential component and the internal and external non-residential uses. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The Applicant proposes to relocate the Preserve off site which will greatly reduce the native vegetation on site. Despite this, open space requirements shall be met and calculations will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 12 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page -179- 1/12/2016 9.B. improvements and facilities, both public and private. It is Staff's opinion that the addition of a residential component as a permitted use will not affect public or private facilities beyond what was approved in the existing PUD. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The current PUD was found consistent with the GMP and compatible with the neighborhood. The addition of a residential component is consistent in an Interchange Activity Center, however Staff recommends greater separation between the proposed residential uses and interior and exterior non-residential uses to increase compatibility. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations The proposed amendment is consistent with PUD regulations, with the five proposed deviations supported by Staff, and seeks to meet a desired purpose of providing a residential component in an Interchange Activity Center. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations from 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" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. High density residential is consistent with an Interchange Activity Center. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; The existing land use pattern was reviewed and approved at the time of the original rezone. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter that pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; No new districts will be created through this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This amendment will not affect existing district boundaries. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 13 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-180- 1/12/2016 9.B. The Applicant believes that this location is appropriate for residential units in addition to the approved Commercial and Industrial units. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; The Saddlebrook PUD to the west is residential. The addition of a residential component to the subject PUD may be a more compatible use. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Transportation Staff reviewed the PUD and found the Level of Service acceptable. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The PUD will be required to meet South Florida Water Management District standards and therefore,will not create a drainage issue. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; The site planning process, PUD dimensional standards and LDC requirements will ensure that light and air circulation are not seriously affected. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by many factors including zoning; however,zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Since the East Gateway PUD is existing, the proposed 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 proposed 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 change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 14 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-181- 1/12/2016 9.B. The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing land-uses; however, the petitioner believes that the addition of a residential component to the currently permitted uses will be consistent with an Interchange Activity Center. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The subject PUD was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. 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. There are other parcels in the County suitable for residential uses. However, an Interchange Activity Center is deemed to be a place for high-density residential. 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 project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by County Staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the PUD process and Staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) 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 seeking approval of five deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in the PUD document. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 15 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-182- 1/12/2016 9.B. It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. , . Please see attached Deviation Justifications provided by the applicant. Deviation 1 —A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.9 On-Premises Directional Signs. Petitioner's Rationale: The Applicant wishes to have additional and larger non-residential signs at the interconnection with the I-75 Alligator Alley CPUD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Staff has no objection to this deviation for directing drivers from a commercial tract in one PUD to a commercial tract in an abutting PUD. Deviation 2 — A Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 Street System Requirements and Appendix B,Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards. Petitioner's Rationale: The LDC establishes 60-feet as the width of a local road. The applicant wishes to reduce that width to 54 feet(non-residential) and 40 feet(residential). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: This deviation is common in PUDs and Preliminary Subdivision Plats. Staff has no objection to the deviation, except for a possible interaction with Deviation 3. Deviation 3 — A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements Petitioner's Rationale: The Applicant believes it will be adequate to construct sidewalks on only one side of residential streets. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends that this Deviation is not approved,based on Board action on a similar Deviation. Deviation 4—A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i(d)Preservation Standards Petitioner's Rationale: —The Applicant wishes to increase the size of the off-site Preserve to 7.72 acres over the existing maximum of 1 acre. The Applicant states that the quality of the vegetation is not high and that the area is infested with exotic vegetation by over 50 percent. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The large acreage difference between the one acre maximum in the LDC and 7.72 acres being requested to be taken offsite is one reason that Staff recommends that this Deviation is not approved. A second reason is that Staff believes that the on-site 7.72-acre preserve should be contiguous with the abutting East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 16 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-183- 1/12/2016 9.B. preserve in the Saddlebrook Village PUD, forming a larger habitat area. (Please see additional discussion on page 10.) Deviation 5 — A deviation from LDC Section 4.02.04.D Standards for Cluster Residential Design Petitioner's Rationale: The Applicant wishes to have the option to construct zero lot line homes with windows on the zero lot line side. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: As long as the 10-foot building separation is maintained, Staff has no objection to this Deviation. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)REVIEW: The CCPC sitting as the EAC is required to hear this petition because of the requested deviation to the preserve requirement. The environmental review is provided on page 10 of this Staff Report. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): A NIM was held on October 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM at the SpringHill Suites on White Lake Boulevard. No members of the public attended. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed this Staff Report on August 6,2015. RECOMMENDATION: Unless Deviation 3 and Deviation 4 are removed, Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA-PL20140000548 to the BCC with a recommendation of denial. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Application&Support Material East Gateway MPUD,PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 17 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-184 1/12/2016 9.B. PREPARED BY: F' `yr" ' ISCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYM fit a V. tELL S,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONIN DIVISION "12/4). MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION 'ROVED BY: s. J JAMES RENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE OWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT eh 7( sr- DAVID S. WILKISON,P. DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the September 22,2015 BCC Meeting East Gateway MPUD, PUDA-PL20140000548 Page 18 of 18 August 20,2015 CCPC Packet Page-185- 1/12120169.B. k'_ M f• -,,•-,44 ,,•-,4'iT�S!4 ; ..sciol" �lyy a.. -11+-C �...... ±ti __c•i„I r, �1_ ', 4 I.,;;=:'''..-: ; 7 . .,. ,; s Q0" f.. � : ta r���++++++ M` ., '- u� 4 # . .. " 4 - i4t" ' -,,.;.,-..7,47-7,-., ,e ,.te $r ,kd; R ''''::'*'''''--- ----:, ---4.4,1- w.} '`*z, ; 5as oa yr„'"+^ ..-,-:'';',....'4:. �:r�3k�}i';; ;K 'A 1,70e tdFe lF. * .+ rx i -'4'. s .. s * 7alrJ „n �� #1f ' 11 ' Gol Gate ¢ , , a 1 ' ={ ; ;, 1,% fCommerceParki Zoning PUD' "a ebb '�1,t" w .i ", �i"[s' . r :1 ,,,z, ,yam ,_ {, 4titr'• ') Colli Ivd Mixedr.Use t, "�"""+1' y1"` a :Comm VN°�.!R 4'' ' 'J 4 • ', �",- 'a, } a pR v 7"x, , . �"1 ,--,„.—_,,,..„--,*-,--.'t'17:;. : U .,..,k,,,-1,.. f >a '11 ` '' , t'W„hitelake`In o ustriai Park—,:,,',' s4 6'�t y. st 4 sk},} a Prdject'Location: x r '►RS F4-m4 ''�' East Gateway MPUD ' ' 0.t t ,ir,...7...:,x,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.-, .-. : ,-„. ' { " ".+ -+ �{ a d . ,e :r ,,. _ ;, .„ ; 1AS99ffk mf` k .1-t. ' (; . ' tC 7t i � M sDenstty; 12 � t Ytx : xL . k �.,y "-V:aL _ e . 1 4 4'` 4 Zon}nu CCD , f 1,.•f< Y47 „.. e `" == =: Al ,a,k� • i. ' '' i 75/Alligator AI ieyl [,.'s. � .— w Toll Gate� e { . t ' ft. r � r.,w, ^s .,q:-. xr 7F t ,"x i �d�- +E e i;., air : _.krv, -1: : %c;;1 1 •' q to 4 • -L .0 t:1 -tf • a `' , ws`&.r_. ”.: 2; 't' k„ -:._ "1, �r ';21....,-`� - 'ate i(} �', i 1 • i.. ,' '4 ,a;gIr Jq ?S ..''`^`�� 'G I ,�' ' ' IW�E r' ,�y' ;r�"' 'L � � t+�`',. • __�•�e,°�"I � � p1� .. ,i. t „,,,,,,1:-i,-......-- t--, iv:, ,'� .„,,1 ,, -,-, i' a°' �� A2, ,. ,•s,4„,1 4 ;""� .*,. ,-t"�'..r y t F', 'F RMF-12 1� M� 4 m n `: 1 ( ) I-751CoUier Bi' � � x ..Y P .:e C.e+:r, ' a ;,-7 - _ i Vs::::° �,z "x gc : 4„.,..1 '4 -- % i,wi{ .. e,• r`te�A t .Comm° Cente ',� A 4 t'1.04:::',U,_.• �, �,�”' '' . '1'ss .'."'"'‘;';''''.3s'"1:"'..;14'11''` ''hr.. `r'*;t'' '1 °' x. ', ,+ € • j+ t *.:v,` ' - .. 4i f '`1..1"-A,,„„."..404-.. 4. � > '-a:.'t 4,'_' �, .: r P i , ew t4 - . ”. t li z .,3• �, •�q", r ix,� B .. `.,.7 }qx r?' { a 3'` „rrrT. ', haY t `V ,.. i.,q¢d, i` i'` .x"A!,€, .w4 "'`:t:`* r ..0 �' F f . qq 6.' , ' X40' , l^- '. „ � V'''‘-'4Z,::';',1,*`.:'�'44: '.,'A €lits, ` 'n t , '`'Iiiko -....:,-;:t.1.1*:et`E cti .� '4"'ry ""R`�r', ;ni'' ''". .• ,i. s '3 1v • '• },�, ' i lr2 yrR`c,, �c�n t n`S P- !.l ,, 3, li,:A �., - ry"gI -ry y� 1 '�y t^"v # `n eY �1 R '_.5 S. IIM' ka • 4 i'd'yl.,i°Ci€'a 34�1I.P Pv '; d 1 �'.rtY' yrviF `� ,,,,',v6 ' at.„ -:M "`� ^i �, ,• •. t A" -'°�' ' • . :., -,2.---,,, „ Forest Glenn of�+lapies ., : West plait Commerce:,Ce ter L ,” P w s m � Delisity 1:26 .• . # ' y. eku #!. 1{ e,:i k.g.-i€ .- a ..!;r:',42„:„'";;`!•;•;;,.'4;;;.,444-',L,-''41.7,x:',';',4::;0., MN �� x r tg Oiim PI1D i: :1 Y 4 �x a, V tl'^ k w R T £ ;f s"1d }Cedar Hammock ' x4 f '44,7-',- ° -'Density 1 9 s* :. ! � .'• r t1r ^ _ xr+x«.(M' �::,s t., ?, vl r ';sS 'k '�`;nv :3..'Pz.. .,. .....�.4, .s � GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) i °j 0, .2 3 N _ FOR EAST GATEWAY MPUD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIESAci �oM.�aa m° oePartmt 1!, Packet Page -186-__ www.sunbiz.org Department of State 1 1/12/2016 9.B. I i,i)it, )i1 1)t i ttlt "V I (.)I I :\ . . dr DI\ Ho\ oi Home Contact Us E-Filing Services Document Searches Forms Help Previous on List Next on List Return to List Filing History No Authority Info No Partner Info No Name History Partnership Detail Partnership Name Search Limited Liability Partnership Name Submit BC NAPLES INVESTMENTS, LLP Principal Address 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES,FL 34105 Change Date: NONE Filing Information Document Number LLP010000601 FEIIEIN Number 593708049 File Date 03/22/2001 State FL Total Pages 17 Pages in Original Filing 2 Florida Partners 2 Total Partners 2 Status ACTIVE Effective Date NONE Expiration Date NONE Name History NONE Registered Agent BAIRD DOUGLAS E 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES,FL 34105 Document Images 04/21/2009—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/2912015—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/28/2014—LLP Business Report View Image in PDF format 03/21/2013—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 02/21/2012—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 05/02/2011 —LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/06/2010—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format LLP009000250—No image available 09/04/2008—Amendment Packet Page-187- http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/gendet.exefaction=t)r,TGEN NAME&web di... 8/3/2015 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State 1 1/12/2016 9.B. View image In PDF format 04/01/2008—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 04/10/2007—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/12/2006—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 04/18/2005—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 04/08/2004—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/06/2003—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/03/2002—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format Previous on List Next on List Return to List Filing History No Authority Info No Partner Info No Name History Partnership Name Search Submit I Home I Contact us I Document Searches I E-Filing Services I Forms I Hell) I Coovrioht©and Privacy Policies State of Florida,Department of State Packet Page-188- http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/gendet.exeYaction=vt rGEN NAMVIE&web_ di... 8/3/2015 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State F 1/12/2016 9.B. }` 1,Uiti?) k Di.P.iit 1 ;sal:\'I ois '1:1' '!: c" A444-1 D i' H W O\` l)I �� �' 11�. 1 1 l\ Home Contact Us E-Filing Services Document Searches Forms Help Previous on List Next on List Return to List Filing History No Authority Info No Partner Info No Name History Partnership Detail Partnership Name Search Limited Liability Partnership Name Submit MC NAPLES INVESTMENTS LLP Principal Address 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34105 Change Date: NONE Filing Information Document Number LLP010000575 FEI/EIN Number 593708533 File Date 03/21/2001 State FL Total Pages 17 Pages in Original Filing 2 Florida Partners 2 Total Partners 2 Status ACTIVE Effective Date NONE Expiration Date NONE Name History NONE Registered Agent BAIRD DOUGLAS E 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES,FL 34105 Document Images 03/21/2001 —LLP View image in PDF format 04/29/2015—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/28/2014—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 03/21/2013—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 02/2912012—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/29/2011 —LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 04/0612010—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format 05/13/2009—LLP Business Report View image in PDF format Packet Page-189- http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/gendet.exe cacnon=ij:G FGENINAME&web_di... 8/3/2015 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State ] 1/12/2016 9.B. 09/03/2008—Amendment View image in PDF format 04/01/2008-UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 04/10/2007—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/12/2006—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 04/18/2005—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/28/2004-UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05106/2003—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format 05/03/2002—UNIFORM BUS REP View image in PDF format Previous on List Next on List Return to List Filing History No Authority Info No Partner Info No Name History Partnership Name Search Submit Home I Contact us I pocument Searches I E-FIllno Services I Forms I Help I Copyright©and Privacy Policies State of Florida,Department of State Packet Page-190- http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/gendet.exeracnon=ur,TGENINAME&web di... 8/3/2015 1112/20169.B. October 1, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida October 1,2015 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: Mark Strain,Chairman Stan Chrzanowski(Absent) Brian Doyle(Absent) Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman Andrew Solis(Absent) ALSO PRESENT: I' Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Assistant County Attorney Fred Reischl,Principal Planner Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman,Real Property Director,CC School District Page I. of 36 Packet Page-191- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the Thursday,October 1st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,good morning. Mr.Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski is absent. Mr. Solis is absent. Ms.Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Ms.Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan and Andy had contacted me. They had other commitments they couldn't break today,so they will not be able to be here. That's an excused absence. ***With that we'll move into the addenda to the agenda. We have two items on today's agenda. The first one will be the East Gateway PUD,and the second one is the rescheduled meeting for the AUIR. And I would like to talk to the panel about the AUIR. Each year we've been reviewing the AUIR, and over the years things have changed. And more recently there's been some legislation that changed the status of the AUIR. But more noticeable is the changes that the AUIR has taken over the years this panel has reviewed it. And its pretty much standardized now and everybody's on the same page,we're using the same population statistics,and it becomes the basis for the upcoming budget. This paneI's main involvement is the CIE,the Capital Improvement Element,and the other elements of the AUIR,which is Annual Update and Inventory Report,feed that and tell us how those numbers get there. In reviewing this year's it's very standardized like we've gotten used to. I have spent a lot of time on all the 15, I think there's 15 different elements,reviewing each one. And with the exception of some questions I have of stormwater,I don't really need for my answer for any of my questioning,because I don't have any basically on the other elements,so I don't need a presentation from staff members today on anything but stormwater. And the reason that's important is the staff is waiting to understand how many of them have to be here. As you know,personnel and staff administrators usually come to this meeting and they spend a lot of time making presentations. So rm going to suggest to the panel,if we don't have a need for their presentation in the sense that we've got the document,then let them keep working and let's just focus on those that we may have questions on. And the only one I have left out of my review is stormwater. And I don't know if anybody else shares that idea or thinks that's a good idea or bad,but Pd sure like to get the input from the rest— COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --of this panel. Good idea,okay. Charlette,are you willing to work-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,I think that that's a good idea. Because the public will get the full benefit of the AUIR at the Board of County Commissioners;is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct,yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,I can support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fine. I just had a couple of questions in two different areas,but Page 2 of 36 Packet Page -192- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 stormwater was one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand that the department administrators are watching this or at least they're going to be monitoring this discussion,and so Ni start,Diane,with you.If you have--Pm asking that stormwater attend the meeting,and I notice Jerry's here so that's going to be taken care of. Is there anybody besides stormwater you'd like to hear—have a discussion with based on your review of the documents? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just a IittIe bit from utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there's several.There's water,there's wastewater and there's solid waste--well,solid waste isn't probably utilities,but yeah,water and wastewater.Which one? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know which one. It isn't wastewater. No,it's the regular utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Potable water? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you'd like someone from potable water to address the panel for your questions. I only have stormwater. Do you have any,Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlene? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No additional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mike,based on that we need two departments to attend. And I notice Jerry's already here,so that takes care of one. We'll move into the AUIR right after we finish up with the first hearing on the PUD. And Mike,if Pm not mistaken,one of the changes in the statutes was that the CIE is now a resolution instead of an ordinance,making it more flexible? MR.BOSI: Correct,Chair. Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director. In 2011 the legislature passed and the Governor signed the Community Planning Act and made revisions to a number of different components within planning within the State of Florida. And they basically provide a lot more flexibility to how you go about amending your CIE. Before it was done by a resolution--or by an ordinance. Now it only requires a resolution. So it's taken the level of standard down a bit. And they provide a lot more flexibility to the local governments in terms of what you can and what you're required to include within your CIE. So they just provided more flexibility and a little bit more home rule control to the jurisdictions and to the counties. And we'll reach out to utilities and make sure that someone can come and address some overview of the potable water issue. The one thing I will say,there's no improvements contained within the five or the 10-year CIE. But we can most certainly make sure that someone from utilities will be able to answer whatever questions that you may have regarding the system and the future system expansions,Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Mike,thank you very much. Heidi,did you have something you wanted-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I wanted to elaborate a little bit. We had been doing it as an ordinance the past few years,including what's proposed for this year. It can be done by resolution,if you prefer. The advertising is the same,it doesn't really make much difference. And as Mr.Bosi said,the difference is this ordinance amendment as proposed is not amending the GMP,it stands alone in the approval of the schedules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from our perspective we simply recommend. It doesn't matter to me and I don't think anybody on the panel whether we're recommending for an ordinance or a resolution. So the Board can do it any way they want when they get it,and Pd just leave that up to them. I don't think we want to weigh in on whether it should be either one. Page 3 of 36 Packet Page -193- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,as Mr.Bosi said,it can be a resolution. We've done it as an ordinance. I don't really think it makes much difference because the advertising is going to be the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: But again,it's not an amendment to the Growth Management Plan like it had been several years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you. Okay,Mike,thank you very much. And with that,we'll look at the rest of our agenda. ***Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on the 15th? Now,the 15th is probably going to be a long meeting. We have a couple of returns that were controversial, including Briarwood. So I want to make sure we retain a quorum the whole day. If all of us know we're going to be here,and I believe the others have not said they wouldn't,so we're going to assume we still have a good quorum on the 15th. ***Approval of minutes. Has anybody or everybody read the September 3rd minutes? And if so,is there any changes? COMNIISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. ***BCC report. Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Yes,on September 22nd the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Toll Gate Center,and that was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you. ***Chairman's report. Nothing new to report today and there's no consent agenda items,so we'll move right into our first advertised public hearing. Actually ifs our only hearing today. It's Item PUDA-PL20140000548,known as the East Gateway Planned Unit Development. It's been continued from our August 6th meeting and from our August 20th meeting and then again from our September 17th meeting to today. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we'll start with disclosures. Tom? MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just staff and Wayne this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,and I— COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,excuse me,Nicole Johnson from The Conservancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've reviewed files; in fact a lot of historic files on this property. Ifs got an overlay attached to it and I've thoroughly gone through that. I've talked to staff. I've met with the applicant and various representatives from the applicant.I received an email this mor--well,I think it was sent out last night. It was from Nicole.I've talked to Nicole and received her email.Actually,it was a book, 10 pages,the last three pages of which were graphics. But I've gotten used to Nicole's writing and I turned to the seventh page of the text which is the last page and read the second to last paragraph and that's all I've had Page 4 of 36 Packet Page-194- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1, 2015 time to read. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I just didn't get time. She sent it kind of late. And when I read the overlay I found some language that I wanted some clarity on,so I went and found the list of people who were involved in the 2000 overlay. I've talked to five of those people: Ray Bellows being one;Nancy Simeon,who is Nancy Gundlach now;Bruce Anderson,who we all know,Anita Jenkins,I talked to her a couple of days ago;and I talked to Jeff Perry. And with that,that's the last of my disclosures. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich and I read Nicole's email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes,I met with staff and I talked with Nicole Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,with that,Wayne,we'll move on to you. MR.ARNOLD: Good morning. Pm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. With us on the project today we have Rich Yovanovich and David Genson. David's with Barron Collier Companies who are the owners of the property. This is a PUD amendment and it's a fairly simple amendment with regard to what we're requesting. It's a previously approved industrial and commercial PUD. We're seeking an amendment to add a residential option for development of the property for up to 250 units. As Mr. Strain mentioned,it is in the activity center;it qualifies for up to 16 units per acre. We're seeking less than the maximum density. But it is in the activity center labeled the project that are adjacent to us. And this property as you can see is vacant. It is—previously approved master plan looked like this. It's not a lot of detail other than the preserve. And then it shows an area for industrial and an area for commercial. Our new master plan proposes to relocate the preserve in part and subject of a deviation as well, which I'm sure we'll be discussing in more detail. And then we've added the residential component to each of the commercial and industrial. So in our PUD document you'll find pretty simple strike-through underlined amendments to add residential dwellings as the permitted principal use in each of the tracts. And then we've also established development standards for the various types of residential that could be developed here. Staff reviewed this and is recommending approval subject to some conditions that I think we need to discuss. We did have a neighborhood information meeting that no one attended,so there's not a lot of neighborhood discussion with regard to this one. But I think in this particular case,you know,the meat is probably two of the deviations that we're seeking. So I'll try to discuss those. We've asked for the deviation for sidewalk on one side of the street. And I know it's probably a very untimely request,but given the fact that the board hasn't had their discussion on this—I know you did. I don't think there was any decision made with regard to how we're going to handle these in the future. But the deviation is still there and we'd like to continue to request the deviation for one side of the street. It's--you know this is a—even though it's a larger parcel of 37 acres it's still an infill parcel between two established projects,the residential component,and it would be the residential component only for that deviation that we've asked for the sidewalk on one side of the street. I have a street cross-section in there.We think it makes sense,we think it's justified. We know staff doesn't agree with that fmding,and rm sure we'll be discussing that momentarily. The other deviation we requested,it's a little unique,and it's one that is allowing us if approved to go off-site and mitigate our preservation requirements for the project. And we knew that wasn't going to be a simple request. But this is an activity center,it's one of the most intensive development areas you can have. Ifs at the interchange activity center. It has commercial development to the east that has no native vegetation on it. The site itself doesn't host any listed species that are utilizing it. And even though the canopy of the trees that are there are considered native,Turrell-Hall who Page 5 of 36 Packet Page-195- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 did the environment assessment for the property identified a majority of the site that's actually exotic infested 50 percent or more.So from a vegetation standpoint it's not the greatest. And we're not arguing that there's not some urban green space that's valuable here.The fact is we're not asking for any deviation from the overall open space requirement. But in this case we're looking to basically relocate the preserve. And one of the components that really was the basis for our continuances was to try to establish the off-site location for this. And Barron Collier Companies has identified a location in the Irnmokalee area that we think is well suited to be the mitigation for this parcel. I don't know how well it reads on there,but the subject parcel that would be the mitigation parcel is just under 30 acres. It's 29.5 acres. The area to the north that's kind of a blue shading is property that's owned by the Water Management District for preservation.And then the areas to the west and south are Pepper Ranch,part of your Conservation Collier acquisition. So this piece would actually link the two together and offer we think a good mitigation at the--for the poorer quality that we have on site. And the numbers that we have,it's—it's a numbers game,I understand in part. But part of it's also your policy discussion. But from a numbers standpoint we would have 7.7 acres of native vegetation preservation on this site.We're establishing and recreating a wetlands system on the north end of the property. It's shown on our master plan. That's adjacent to 1-75 but it's also adjacent to the preserve area that's part of the Saddlebrook project next to us. We're not asking for any credit for that 2.7 acres of property. That would be property that we would go ahead and put back as native vegetation in a wetland environment. So really the difference,we're going off site for the 7.7 acres but taking no credit for those 2.7 acres on site. And again,you know,our thought process is this is valuable land for the purposes of the more intensive development. There's not a wildlife component here,there's no listed species,we have a good off-site recipient for the mitigation,and we think it makes sense if we're going to encourage these infill projects to incur at the densities they need to be developed at and to make economic sense. Because at the end of the day the economics of a project is important. You know,the Barron Collier companies,they know this.And,you know,for every part of the preservation area that we would grow on-site,they lose opportunity to build units. The fewer number of units that you build brings the price point up potentially. But there's also probably a maximum price point at a location that's at the interchange activity center,so I don't think there's going to be a market for million dollar residences in this location,but we do think that there's a strong market for gap housing. And to get the gap housing at the number of units that make economic sense,we can't physically fit the preservation requirements on this site and bring delivery of what they want to develop,which are small lot single-family residences in this location. So that's where we've come from. And the one component that you hadn't seen was the off-site mitigation parcel which we think makes a lot of sense as a preservation area. It's zoned agricultural with a mobile home overlay today. And it could be put into a preservation. And we had this discussion with others but,you know,people seemed to be concerned that this sets the precedent. And there are a lot of factors here that make this something that can't happen throughout the county. It's in an interchange activity center,it's an infill parcel,it doesn't have any listed species utilizing the site. The preserve area that was shown on the original master plan is a narrow strip of land that serves no real purpose other than the green space component. So we'd like to do something more meaningful by going off-site and preserving land that should be preserved. That's our position on that deviation. I don't know if there's a whole lot more we have to discuss with regard to the project. I'd be happy to answer questions from Planning Commission or go through the document if there are questions about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,l know there's going to be questions about the document,so maybe the rest of your presentation we can just go back and forth with questions from this panel. MR.ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,I'll ask my fellow commissioners if they have any questions Page 6 of 36 Packet Page-196- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 they'd like to start out with. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,I'll just work through the document from the beginning of it and we'll go through the questions. Then when we get to things that you all have notes on,just jump in. Okay,in our package the PUD part of it starts on Page 27 or 28. My first question in the PUD is on I--the pages aren't numbered like we're used to. It's Roman numeral I-5.It's Section 1.5,the end of it on I-5. And Wayne,on the top of that page,these are things I have come up with since we talked.Last sentence at the top of the page,it says:A catch basin culvert system along the overland sheet flow will collect and convey project runoff to the dry detention areas into the preservation native vegetation area once acceptable water quality is achieved. Well,if you're proposing to take off the preserve native vegetation area,then where is this water going to go;do you know? MR.ARNOLD: Well,its still going to discharge off-site. But we intend to utilize the recreated wetland area as part of our water management system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then Pm trying to fit that with the paragraph below which says: The off-site outfall was constructed during the construction of Saddlebrook Village. Said outfall is in existence and functional. No further design modifications to the existing system are required. How does that fit in with what you just said? MR.ARNOLD: I don't think it changes anything I said. We still have to provide on-site water quality treatment before we can discharge through the control structure that's on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The control structure is on,it looks like,Saddlebrook Village's property. Do you know where and how it relates to the creative preserve that you're going to use for water management? MR ARNOLD: Well,the relationship is we have a discharge location and the water quality function and the wetland that we have is a component of the overall water management system. It's not the discharge location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what are you going to do,pipe down to wherever this existing outfall is? Is that what your intention is? MR ARNOLD: It will either be piped or swaled. Pm not sure that we've gotten that far in our designs. Depends on whether or not we get a deviation or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 2.2 under general,A,I made a note to you and I assume you corrected it or intend to correct it. The reference on the second line is it said FUD,planned unit development. You mean PUD,right? MR.ARNOLD: Yes,I'm pretty sure we did.But it might not be inappropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be very appropriate to change it. On 2.4,maximum project intensity. This is—the last sentence says: If industrial business park is constructed on the 1BR,industrial business park,or residential tract,then no residential uses or dwelling units are allowed on this tract. Can we make that a little clearer in the sense that we could say if any industrial or business park use is constructed on the tract then there will be no residential constructed anywhere on the tract? MR.ARNOLD: I think we can do that,yeah.That was our intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was,but the way that reads,if--you'd have to create something called a business park to trigger it,and I'm worried that someone might try to do that. So really you're talking about any industrial business park uses,and that would help clarify it. The 2.7.B is existing language,but it's referring to a green space of not less than 10 feet in width as measured from the property line or edge of pavement between the off-street parking and the drive aisles. In the activity center number nine language in the LDC,and it's Section 4.02-23.D.2.A,it says: Landscape buffers adjacent to all other public streets shall measure a minimum of 15 feet in width. And I just want to make sure that that paragraph that you've got there doesn't try to modify that section of the code,because you're not asking for a deviation from it. MR.ARNOLD: Honestly,Mr. Strain,I don't know that Bethel Circle is a public road. Page 7 of 36 Packet Page-197- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. And that's what I was hoping since it involves your project you'd know. But well,maybe by the time we get back for consent that issue can be looked at. And if needed, you'd have to modify it. And that takes us to one of the more questionable issues which is 2.1.1. It's on II-5. And this is the one involving the native vegetation retention requirements. And you and I spoke about it. I had tried to see if the overlay provided any assistance,and I did talk with five different people who were involved in the overlay. None of them could confirm that it related to that--the issue of the preserve. I therefore have a concern over the consistency in that deviation which would affect paragraph 2.1.1. So Pm just telling you that now. We're going to have more discussion,but in the end I still can't get past the consistency issue for that deviation. The other deviation which is on paragraph--or page 11-6 is deviation number three. I know you believe by waiting for the Board to weigh in further on sidewalks you might have a different outcome. As far as my concern over that one is,I don't see the deviation being warranted,and that's another deviation Pd have to agree with the staff recommendation on that as well. And we get to Page BI-4. It's 3.3.B,top of the page. You're talking about on-site recreation facilities,and I just needed to clarify one of your references. The last two lines refer to bollard type lighting limited height needed for security purposes but no greater than 12 feet in height. They don't make--I thought bollards are those waist-high lighting,not 12-foot high lighting. MR ARNOLD: I don't know what the height of a bollard light is. I mean,I do think of them too as sort of the waist high,chest high type lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think you might want to reword that so that either/or is what your intention is. Because if you don't do bollards 12 feet high if they don't exist,you may fmd a problem fitting them in. MR.ARNOLD: So if we said we'd do either bollard lighting or other lighting limited to 12 feet, would that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. On Page III-4.D at the bottom of the page,minimum yards and buffers,the overlay has strict buffer requirements,as does that section in the LDC. The 25-foot Iandscape buffer referred to in the last sentence shall be provided along the entire frontage of Davis Boulevard. That buffer has design criteria in the overlay. Are you—and so does the LDC.You're not intending to change that by not referencing the overlay on this,are you? • MR ARNOLD: I don't think that was our intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then when we get to the next paragraph,B,talks about commercial residential uses are developed in the tract. A minimum of 20-foot wide C landscape buffer shall be provided between the two uses. You don't mention a wall. I just want to make sure that we add the language a wall will be included in that as well. MR.ARNOLD: Is that because of the reference to the Type C? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I know Type C references a fence/wall,but I don't know if it's a requirement. Sometimes it's been read to not necessarily mean a requirement,so--okay? MR.ARNOLD: Wall is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then on F,maximum height for commercial. And I think I mentioned this to you yesterday or day before.Directly adjacent to Saddlebrook. Can we just put a reference to a footage in there instead of just directly adjacent? It used to say 35 feet directly adjacent to Saddlebrook, but at least we knew within 35 feet that was considered directly adjacent. What was your intention of— MR ARNOLD: Well,I think— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is commercial. I think you've got a 50-foot elsewhere,but I'll get to that in a minute. MR ARNOLD: Well,I think what might be the simple solution,Mr. Strain,would just be for the residential. You know,it's the heights we have. And for--it's stricken as a height,but we could add it as a Packet Page-198- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 distance from the property line and say commercial uses or say within 50 feet of Saddlebrook or greater than 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm looking for. MR.ARNOLD: So directly adjacent it would be 35 and 45. But to go above and get to the 50 and 60,we would be at least 50 feet from Saddlebrook. Does a number like that work?And that's equal to our height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that would work. I think we're going to get to another section that starts talking about some of that distances too. Let me see where that is. Oh,before we get there,III-5,at the bottom of the page,L,talks about architectural uniformity. Commercial development in this MPUD shall have a common architectural theme for all structures. And then it talks guidances in Section 5.05.08. Then after that--I mean that's on the top of the following page it continues. Section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code:Or may be unique to the MPUD in conformance with the interchange master plan. There's nothing that I can find that allows that"or"to be something allowed. It is. You have three choices for your architectural theme;they're in the overlay and they're in the LDC. So it's not a matter of or, it has to be one of those three,unless you're asking for a deviation,which I don't think you are. MR.ARNOLD: I think the language we're talking about is already existing in the PUD document today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it may be,but you had inserted Ianguage at the bottom of your development standards tables for the new residential. That basically says anything not noted as a deviation in this PUD will not be a deviation. So if you've got a requirement in the--and I can read the—we have to pull it up but it said there's three. There it is:Buildings within the activity center number nine,this is 4.02.23.B, shall be limited to three complimentary character themes:Everglades,rural and old Florida,as defined in the vision statement for activity center number nine interchange master plan. Are you telling us you want to deviate from that? I mean,this is a rewrite of that PUD. And the new statements that you put in here,like we have expected under the developments standard table,says that if something isn't listed as a deviation then it isn't a deviation. You're going to be consistent--you're looking puzzled. I can read that paragraph-- MR ARNOLD: I am puzzled,because the residential table is not the same development standards table for any of the commercial or industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,I'll read the sentence. It says: Nothing in this MPUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in the list of deviations. MR.ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it says nothing.Doesn't say just residential,it says nothing in this PUD. I agree with that. And if your intention was to deviate from that vision statement,we've got a couple of other areas that this is going to come into play. And in particular the buffer that goes along I-75,it's supposed to be 25 feet wide within 400 feet of I-75. And according to this you're abutting 1-75 so--I think with the buffer at some location. So that's another item that maybe you would want a deviation on but you didn't ask for one. And I'm trying to understand why the interchange activity center visioning statement wouldn't necessarily apply to this project,if that's what you're thinking it doesn't. MR.ARNOLD: Well,I think this project was approved previously with the interchange activity center language that exists,because it's referenced in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I agree. But you're coming in for a change,and I think that it was missed once doesn't mean it needs to be missed twice. I mean,who said that if--some attorney said we reserve the right to get smarter. And I'll never forget that statement,so I'll use it too. MR.ARNOLD: Let me think about this paragraph,because it's not something that.I recall us discussing. And all we changed in there was the new code reference to the architectural standards— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm-- MR.ARNOLD: —under the architectural uniformity language that you questioned. Pane 9 of 36 Packet Page-199- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me get back to it. MR.ARNOLD: We struck division 2.8 which is no longer referenced in the LDC. And it's now Section 5.05.08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,I see that. But then you say: Or may be unique to the—I'm saying you don't have a choice. It's not"or".We have a section of the code that's written specifically for this interchange activity center. You're not asking for deviations from it. So why would it be "or",like you have a choice? You don't. It's going to be one of those three styles unless you ask for a deviation. MR.ARNOLD: But I don't think this contemplates a deviation. I think it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR.ARNOLD: —it says we're going to be in conformance with the LDC or the interchange activity center criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the LDC 5.05.08 does not have the three limitations in style that the over--the vision statement does,the interchange activity center overlay does. That's all Pm getting at. If it did we wouldn't need that section of the code for that activity center. MR.YOVANOVICH: So can I ask this question? If-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who are you? MR YOVANOVICH: I'm the attorney that you quoted,Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,you're representing the applicant,I take it? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. So Mr. Strain,Fm asking this question:Does the reference in the interchange activity center to the three types mean that's all I have to do,I don't have to comply with Section 5.05.08? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not the way 4.02.23 is written. These supplement. And it says: In addition to the requirements of Section 5.05.08,buildings shall have the features,characteristics,and then it goes on from there. MR.YOVANOVICH: Are you asking that the word"or"be changed to the word"and"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And they've both got to be consistent. So "or"needs to be"and" is what it boils--that would be a simple way to fix it. MR.YOVANOVICH: And that's for the commercial structures,correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's going to be for both. I mean,you're going to have the same language I believe pops up under the industrial side of it or-- MR.YOVANOVICH: That probably wasn't the best way to phrase the question. Do the homes that we intend to build have to meet the three architectural types? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe it was the intention. I think it was— MR.YOVANOVICH: I didn't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —for the commercial. MR.YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,Pm not suggesting it does. Fin trying to get this thing— MR.YOVANOVICH: I know it just says commercial,but I wasn't sure—you're reading from something in the interchange activity center,and I don't know if it intended to apply to residential within the interchange activity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe it did.Doesn't seem like the intent. When we get to the first development standards table on 3.5,I went back and looked at some other projects and tried to figure out how a multi-family building could have a side yard of 10 feet when it was going to be 50 feet high. I understand that your side yards would be superseded by the minimum distance between structures. But what if you've got a multi-family up against a—I mean,your three-story up against a single-story building?Which standard would apply then? Because one is 25 feet and the other is 12. And I don't know how you intend to lay this project out and mix up the product. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm suggesting that under the minimum side yards we look at either half the building height or the minimum distance between structures some way and mix that together so that one suffices when another one drops out because of a change in stories between buildings. 111 "F'24 Packet Page-200- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 MR.ARNOLD: Pm going to need to give that some thought on how this could be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,we're going to end up coming back on consent on this one,so we'll have time to do that. Under the accessory structures,your minimum side yard setbacks,you have five feet,then you go zero feet,asterisk one. I'm wondering why you put the asterisk one in there when it gives you zero feet. MR ARNOLD: Well,I think it could reference because we establish the minimum if it's detached of 10 feet in that footnote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minimum distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of zero feet where attached garages are provided and a 10-foot minimum separation is maintained if detached. So if you didn't put the asterisk one,the zero feet wouldn't give you that separation? I mean,that's-- MR.ARNOLD: I think it would. I mean,clearly 10 feet's greater than zero. I mean,if you don't think I need the reference-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I just wanted to understand if it meant anything different than what it seemed to. And you can leave it in for clarity. I just wanted to make sure I understood what you're getting at. On the next page under section four,item 4.2,you had some new language and it says:Instead of the industrial business park uses,dwelling units shall be permitted in the IBR area. And I would suggest you add to the end of that instead of the--or modify it. Instead of the industrial park uses,dwelling units up to 250 or—somehow put in there that it's"or". Because here it was reading instead of.I'm suggesting it's or up to 250 units. I think it just needs to be crafted a little differently so we know that you can do one or the other but not both. MR.ARNOLD: Well,the last sentence does say: Has to be developed entirely with either nonresidential or residential. Maybe that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think--and the other thing I did,maybe this is—the second sentence I suggested crossing out,the IBR tract shall not be developed with mixed use development consisting of residential development. Pm not sure you need that. We don't do mixed use and industrial that I know of. MR.ARNOLD: Well,our industrial allows certain other non-industrial uses in the list of uses. So I didn't want it to be exclusive to only being able to put industrial uses out of that list there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first sentence where it talks about the 250,000 square feet of industrial business park uses. MR ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you just continue that and say: Or up to 250 residential units,and then left the rest of it,I think we'd get there. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just make sure that-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,ma'am. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think it might lack some clarity if you put that in there,because they can do residential in the commercial district as well,and it's capped at 250 for the whole PUD. Correct,Wayne? CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Right,it says that elsewhere in the PUD that they can-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: But if you put that they can have 250 here,I just don't want it misconstrued, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mic's not picking up,Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The cap for the entire PUD I understand is 250. So the commercial can also have residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I just didn't want to confuse the calculation of the total. But, I mean,we can clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you just need to make some clarifications to that paragraph by the time we come back for consent. We'll just—I think you can figure out a way to tweak the language to meet Pane 11 of 36 Packet Page-201- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 the concerns. MR.ARNOLD: I think we could just add another reference to the maximum of 250 dwelling units shall be permitted within the entire PUD or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred? MR.REISCHL: Mr.Chairman,Fred Reischl,Zoning Division. We also wanted to make sure that the intent of this is clear,that you're not going to have industrial and residential in the same tract. So as long as the language preserves that statement,we'd like to keep that in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We agree. And I think the applicant agrees too. We've just got to get there a little bit more--that sentence is a little hard to understand. If we go to page IV-3,top of the page,you talk about your on-site recreational facilities. In the other projects where this language has been used before when we're close to residential,we ask for a wall. So I would suggest we need to add an eight-foot wall required when within 50 feet of residential. So that would only happen when you're up against Saddlebrook or your internal stuff. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then under 4.4.C,you're asking for a floor area ratio of.45.But that's not needed because you have a cap of 250,000 square feet. So what is the point of C? MR.ARNOLD: I think the reference to business park there,Mark,is where that is derived from. If you look at the business park zoning district,I think it has an FAR.,but I'm not sure it's a.45. But probably is. I'm sure Mr. Genson would be happy to remove the floor area ratio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you're Iimited to 250,000 square feet. I don't think it matters how you get there. So I would think that just could lend confusion to someone on argument in the future that you can do more than 250,000 square feet because that ratio exists. I don't think that was the intent by either the applicant or by the approval process previously. Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,for the record,Ray Bellows. I agree, it would be conflicting language.It appears to be older language that's not needed anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,then we can just--unless—you don't have an objection dropping that paragraph,Wayne? MR.ARNOLD: No,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page IV-4.J,we need to clean up that"or"to an "and". And the same as we talked about previously. Page 51,when you figure out a way to take a look at the side yards in reference to height,it needs to be cleaned up on that table as well. On Page 5--well,not Page 56,its my Page 56,but V-5,the top of the page is item B. I notice we cleaned up all the traffic paragraphs,but we left this one in which doesn't really do anything because we have codes to address it. So do you have a reason why you Ieft that one in? MR.ARNOLD: I believe it was at the request of the former transportation planning director. We were asked to delete all but those that were remaining. I agree with you,.I don't think it's necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pd just as soon see it struck. We've got codes to address it so it's not needed any longer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're talking about C? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B. On Page V-8,number A on the bottom, it's existing language,but we're back to is this a deviation. And it appears to be. Because you want a nine-foot high fence measured differently. If it's a deviation,we need to state it as such. I don't have a problem with it,I just want to make sure we've allocated. Fred,do you guys see that as a deviation or not? MR.REISCHL: Well,we looked at it as an existing portion of the PUD that was previously approved. So we didn't ask them to put it in as a deviation. If you want to,we have no objection to that. MR.ARNOLD: Mr.Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Page 12 of 36 Packet Page-202- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 MR.ARNOLD: Might it just be easier if we just limit it to eight feet,consistent with what commercial walls are allowed to be? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well then you just need to strike it,right? MR.BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that would clean it up. That's fine. Under V-9,item B,you added a new sentence involving the landscape buffers. And it says: For residential development buffering shall be per the Collier County Land Development Code. I think you want to just say or this PUD.Because you have some changes to the landscape buffering in the PUD that you may want to benefit from. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into your master plan,in the section of the code that talks about the standards for the activity center there's another standard there that says: Landscape buffers adjacent to Collier Boulevard,SR 84(Davis Boulevard and Beck Boulevard)and within 400 linear feet of I-75 right-of-way line they shall measure a minimum of 25 feet in width. Where industrial lands abut 1-75, an eight-foot high unified opaque and masonry wall will be installed. And I just noticed that on the South Florida Water Management District creative preserve you end up actually going right up against it. It appears to be the right-of-way of I-75 on the eastern side. So somewhere along there you're going to probably trigger that language in the code. MR.ARNOLD: We're saying it just means we're going to have a minimum width of 25 feet where it terminates along our frontage is how I would interpret that. Of I-75. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,within 400 feet of 1-75,right, And in some of the graphics you have an Exhibit B for your deviation two and three. I understand two,but three is the one with the sidewalks,so that graphic would need to be amended to show the sidewalks on both sides. On the Exhibit C-- MR.ARNOLD: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.ARNOLD: I hate to interrupt you,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MR.ARNOLD: You've asked for us to modify that. I think that's something that the applicant is not willing to do at this point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I can't hear what he's saying. MR.ARNOLD: Essentially eliminating the sidewalk deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're still going to go to the Board with the request to remove the sidewalks? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes me to the last of my questions from the PUD. And that's all--does anybody from this panel have anything that they'd like to add? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Wayne. COMMIISSIONER EBERT: I do have one question. No,more than one. But at this point. This is an old PUD. They have taken out industrial of this within the new language,correct? MR.ARNOLD: No,we're--it's actually the residential comes in as another development option to industrial or commercial. We haven't eliminated the industrial itself. We just added the residential as an option. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait a minute. Then I'm reading something wrong here. Industrial uses were formerly allowed in this quadrant of the interchange activity center but are no longer allowed. Can maybe you—can someone then from--it's— MR.BELLOWS: What section are you reading from? Pane 13 of 36 Packet Page-203- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's on Page 4 and 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on the top of I think Page 5 of the staff report. I read it too. I don't necessarily know if it's right or wrong. It doesn't really pertain because this project grandfathered in ahead of it. So if they've still got it,they've got it. They've had it industrial for all this time. I don't think that's the intention is taking that away. MR.REISCHL: That was a comp.planning-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.REISCHL: --sentence. I don't know specifically what took those uses away,but the uses are permitted there now in the PUD. And I don't think we're saying that because they're no longer allowed we're going to take them away out of this PUD. They have the right to do that if that's one of their options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what happened is there was a change in the GMP that said the north—the two quadrants in the north side,I believe,and then it said the southeast or southwest quadrant of Collier and Davis,which was south of Davis now instead of north where this one is. That I believe is why it may say that,although that means the interchange activity center vision statement and a few other things don't mix right with the statements in the GMP. I didn't pay it a lot of attention because it's irrelevant. They've had their industrial there already so they would be grandfathered in. MR.ARNOLD: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I didn't get into that issue. Although if it was a new PUD we certainly would. MR.ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,one other thing. On the environmental,the 2.25 acres that go to the South Florida Water Management has nothing to do with Collier County. But you keep wanting to add that in. MR.ARNOLD: Well,we're not taking credit for it. It would be lands that would be scraped down slightly and converted to a wetland environment,replanted. It would meet the preservation requirements for the South Florida Water Management District permit we have to obtain. But under your code in Collier County the recreated preserves are not allowed to be credited toward preserve area calculations. So we took no credit for that. And that's why our off-site mitigation proposal was for the entirety 7.7 acres. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,I'll do some more listening here then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think that's all the questions at this time,Wayne,thank you. MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Fred,I guess we'll have a staff report now? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Fred Reischl,Zoning Division. Staff was very supportive when this first came in of the adding the residential component. We believe that an activity center is a good place and the GMP says it's a good place for high density residential. In another submittal they've reduced it down to the 250 units,which I think if(sic)the entire PUD it calculates out to 6.7,I believe,units per acre,which is moderate and not high density. But still it's a good place for residential. The two deviations that you had already mentioned that had staff disagrees with would be the sidewalks on only one side of the residential streets. Because of the discussion at the Planning Commission and because of the Argo Manatee at the Board,staff feels that we should go forward with sidewalks on both sides of residential streets. And Kirsten Wilkie is here,she can get into more detail on the preserve,but we believe that since the code says one acre would be the max,that going to over seven acres off-site would be precedent setting, whether it's referring to an interstate activity center,an activity center or the urban area in general. So we agree that that deviation should not go forward. Except for those two deviations,we would recommend approval. Page 14 of 36 Packet Page-204- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 ti CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had one question of the applicant. Wayne,you had said something I meant to follow up on. You said you were going to be doing gap housing. Does that mean you're going to be providing it as a commitment through the Housing Department like gap housing is supposed to be? MR.ARNOLD: I think the reference was that's the price point that they want to deliver homes in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to keep that price point for 15 years as the gap housing requirements require? MR.ARNOLD: Let me inquire with my client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if you are,we can stipulate that and that would help confirm you're going to do gap housing. If you aren't then it really isn't gap housing,it's what you want to start point—your starting points are,which a lot of projects all over the county do that. MR.ARNOLD: Mr. Strain,the reality is if we don't get the deviation approved,I don't know what the housing type is going to be. It may have to morph into something else,if there's even a market for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I'm not asking you to do this,I'm just suggesting if you--you're using that terminology, I want to understand the intensity or meaning of it. And honestly,it's a reference to a starting point for a sale price,that's what it seems to be.Thank you. Okay,with that,Ray,do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak? Except for Nicole Johnson. MS.JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record,Nicole Johnson,here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And The Conservancy is very concerned about deviation number four for the preserves.I apologize for the lateness of the letter going out,but I did want to wait until after I had the opportunity to meet with the applicant out of fairness to that discussion,and that's why the letter did not get to you until yesterday afternoon. The outcome of our discussion was I think we cordially agreed to disagree on the impact of having that preserve be relocated off-site. And just one comment that I want to make from our discussions,because we talked a bit philosophically about what if 640 acres,one square mile of land,was offered in exchange for these 7.72 acres. And my response,I think to the amazement of the applicant and their team,was no,because we believe that that sets a dangerous precedent. But I think it's an interesting philosophical question,so I just want to digress for a brief second on this. Because if you buy into 640 acres for 7.7 acres,that's a good deal. Yes,we agree to that. Then it's going to come back,well,what about 600 acres?That's still a lot of land. 500 acres,400 acres. And then you've bought into this idea that you can do the trading of the urban preserves for off-site acreage somewhere else and you end up where we are today,at a 2-1 ratio, 15 acres out someplace towards Imrokalee,Lake Trafford. An important parcel,a good parcel,but it really gets away from this idea of having these urban preserves and the importance of the urban preserves. So I think it was a good question for discussion,and after I had a little more time to think about it, that's my complete answer,Rich. You know,in looking at this one acre maximum,I do want to say The Conservancy was part of the LDC discussions. I think they took place 2007,2008,2009. We were concerned about allowing any preserves to go off-site because we thought wait a minute,it is going to have a snowballing effect of first it's a small preserve and then it gets bigger and bigger and bigger. One acre seemed to be that threshold that everyone could agree you could probably in certain cases allow that to happen because of the shape of the parcel,because it wouldn't make the parcel marketable for anything. And that could be appropriate. And so The Conservancy did agree,yeah,anything less than an acre we believe might be appropriate. Pane 15 of 36 Packet Page-205- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 And a good example of that,The Landings at Bear's Paw,a very odd triangular shaped parcel. They have I think about a little over a half of acre of preserve that they needed on-site. And in that case it made sense to transfer it off-site. Again,something very small and you could get something much greater in return for it. We do believe that this will set a precedent,as staff has said. Certainly others are going to want to come in and be afforded the same opportunity to not put a preserve in place,especially in the urban area. Looked at another way,okay,if it's not going to set a precedent,certainly every project could come in and say that they are unique in their own special way. In this case it's in the interchange activity center. The next project will be unique in its circumstance and they'll look back and say well,you gave it to them, we'd like to have it for us. So we think that it just sets a really bad pattern. hi looking at the applicant's reasons for the deviation, one of them is with the exotics.And a bunch of the property has over 50 percent exotics infestation. I think it's important to point out,even exotic infested native habitat does provide benefits: Groundwater recharge,you still have pollutant filtration,urban wildlife will still use it,avian wildlife will still • use it. So there are benefits. And it's also a kind of an unfair argument,because when do you actually have to clean up your land? Not until the development stage. So it's this circular argument of it's exotic infested so we shouldn't have to save it,yet you don't actually have to go in and clean it up until you're developing. I think a good example to show what happens when you clean up exotic infested parcels is the Logan Woods preserve. That was a five-acre parcel,relatively isolated that Conservation Collier spent for over $700,000 at the corner of Logan and Pine Ridge Road.Because the voters,the people who approve Conservation Collier said we want urban green space,it's important and we want to put our money towards that. And on that parcel,a lot of exotics. But when the county went in and cleaned it up they found that you have the native seed source that was kind of buried in the soils. Everything started to regenerate,you had natives coming up and now it's a beautiful place to go and take a walk and you have the urban wildlife, avian wildlife using it. So once they clean up their 7.72-acre preserve it is going to have even more value. Another one of the justifications for the deviation was this idea that listed species aren't using it and that it's a relatively isolated parcel. Certainly preserves are important for more than just listed species.They provide benefits esthetically for quality of life for us as residents,and they're also again important for those other benefits such as urban wildlife. And I also wanted to discuss the idea of this being an isolated parcel. I think the county has done some mapping on this also,and it was in your packet. But this acreage,and you can see that we have used the current configuration from the existing PUD so the preserve is in kind of a funny alignment. I'm not sure if that is consistent with today's LDC or not. But that's why we have it in that configuration. And you can see that there are a lot of conservation areas in the vicinity of this project,even though it's within an activity--interchange activity center. You can see Saddlebrook,it's directly adjacent to the 11 acres at Saddlebrook. It also is very close to other county required preserves which are in the teal. These are Water Management District conservation easements in the green. This is part of a system of preserves that is important,especially for those avian wildlife species. And in pulling that out even a little more you can see that all long the 951 corridor you have conservation areas. This is the Naples National Golf Club,it's in a different color. Because for some reason back in 1992 the district and the county had them give their conservation easement to The Conservancy. But you can see it's a whole system of green space of which having an addition right here at East Gateway will be beneficial. And one final map on the connectivity and potentially on the listed species,and this was something that was in the letter that I sent to you,there is a program underway to reinitiate red-cockaded woodpeckers within the Picayune Strand State Forest and within other areas such as the Resource Recovery Park. And you have some dots here that show the boxes that have been installed in certain pine tree areas Page 16 of 36 Packet Page -206- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 to try to recruit red-cockaded woodpeckers into the area. You have at Willow Run,that's an active cluster. And so we're trying to get these RCWs to be branching out. We have a really exciting opportunity for a recruitment cluster to be placed at Naples National. And when you look at sort of connecting the dots of the RCW habitat,the East Gateway parcel which is not currently RCW habitat,and we're not saying it should be regulated as such,but it shows that it provides some of these hopscotch areas for birds potentially such as RCWs to use. And one final point. With a two-plus acre created wetland on-site,you're certainly going to be attracting wetland bird species. Some of them may be listed. And in that case they could actually use the on-site preserve for roosting,for resting,those sorts of things. And in response to the fmal reason for justifying this deviation that it's in a highly developed,high intensity interchange activity center,really what they're wanting to put here is a residential community. And we don't believe that that constitutes any kind of unique use. And certainly with residential having some additional green space in the form of a preserve is something that we think is important. It seems like what this really is about,and it may not be intentional but I think that it will lead to the discussion of,is having urban preserves and green space,is that important to the community? And The Conservancy believes it is. We believe that preserves are valuable and having them within the urbanized area is important. And therefore we ask that this deviation not be approved. We believe it will set a negative precedent. And we would like to work with the applicant to find a way to get those 7.72 acres within their project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Nicole,just out of curiosity,on this map you show the woodpecker nesting near Willow Run. That's right where the new Nick Casalanguida road corridor is going to go. MS.JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That might slow that corridor down a little bit. MS.JOHNSON: Well,that and the gopher tortoises and the conservation easement there,we hope that it will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was curious. Okay. I was surprised to see that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: We've had that discussion a little bit CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I know. Thank you,Nicole. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this matter today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne,do you have any last minute condolences or— MR.ARNOLD: No,I don't think so. I think the edits that you've questioned,I think I captured those well. And we've explained our rational for the deviations and hope you can support them. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: I'd Iike to ask you a few other things that I think we've somewhat talked about. I notice one of the staff concerns was the intensity of the commercial that could be there next to the residential if you did a mixed commercial and residential. Because you can go from C-1 through C-5,and the C-5 is like light industrial. Would you mind limiting it that if you use residential in the commercial tract you'd only be C-1 to C-4? We have C-4 adjacent to residential in other parts in the county. Do you need to go to C-5? MR.ARNOLD: You know,I'm not certain,Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you look at that when you come back? MR.REISCHL: Mr.Chairman,are you staying if it stays as 100 percent commercial it can be C-1 through C-5,but if residential is a component then you're— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,C-1 to C-4. I know staff recommended a C-3,but since we have a lot of C-4 bordering residential in the county, we know we can reach some compatibility standards there. Especially if they're trying to sell a product, Page 17 of 36 Packet Page-207- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 they'll try to make that happen. So I think we're safer. C-5 on the other hand is pretty heavy stuff,so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: You already have an answer? MR.ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the other question I have is more process-wise. I like the idea of your adding residential to this property. I.don't see a problem with it. There are some people that feel that we don't have enough commercial and industrial shovel ready property. This is certainly shovel ready, and it's certainly been on the market a long time.And Hertz and other people haven't picked up on this piece. So the fact that it hasn't gone to commercial/industrial and you want to introduce another product,I don't have a problem with that and I think it's a fine idea. I think the tweaking that we've done to the language straightens all that out. I do have a concern over the two deviations,number three and four. Normally when we find a problem with a deviation,we can,if the board so chooses,recommend approval subject to,and then we stipulate. The problem I've got is if we stipulate,we don't agree to deviation three and four.Three's not so much of a problem,we've dealt with that one before,but four becomes a problem,because normally we have the preservation area is shown opposite the master plan. And if you're going to refuse to acknowledge that request from the Planning Commission,which I think that's your position,you're going to go on to the Board with a request for that deviation,then are you willing to come back and show a preserve on the master plan for consent or is that going to be a stumbling block we've got to figure out some way around? MR.ARNOLD: I don't know the legal answer to that,but I know that the County Commission in many cases makes additional changes to these PUDs that don't come back to you. So I'm not sure if that's one that the deviations are tied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the reason it rises to a higher level,we're hearing this today as the EAC as well. So I want to make sure that if we try to recommend approval subject to the denial of those two deviations,that automatically says then we should be seeing a plan that without those deviations there reflect how the plan would be then,how you would add--and by the way,I don't have any problem with you including the South Florida Water Management District preserves as part of the 7.7 acres or whatever it is that you've got—that you calculate the preserve to begin with. Because to me that's logical. So you've still got about five acres you'd have to show on this plan to satisfy the removal of that--or the no vote on that deviation, if that's the way this board goes. And Pm just wondering,if that happens how do we get there today? And I don't know if there's a solution,so I was kind of looking for staff. We haven't had this come up before. MR BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. If the Planning Commission stipulates that the preserve area as currently configured be the design, then I don't know if you need to see it again unless there are some conditions you would like to place in addition to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they can't be as currently designed because the South Florida Water Management District preserve area is differently configured than the current design.And if they get the credit of that against the county required preserves then they've only got to add about five acres. But if we're not on the same page to get there,I'm trying to figure out a way to still make--acknowledge that--I think this is a good addition,a good change to this project in regards to the uses. So Richard,do you have-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I think the only other option you have,Mr. Strain,because we're not going to come back with a master plan that's different than what is in front of you today,your only default is to say we'd like to keep,and I think Nicole was advocating,the configuration that exists in the current master plan, which is the long,skinny one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think you could come back with a better more thought out plan for preservation land that would fit better with the product that you're asking to add. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,the product that we're asking to add--and let me take a step back. We Page 18 of 36 Packet Page-208- 1/12/20169.B. October 1, 2015 are willing to commit that the deviation we're requesting regarding the preserve is only if we build single-family housing,not multi-family housing. Because our goal,as we've said up front,is to build single-family housing on this project. I don't recall if Wayne mentioned that the square footage of the housing was going to be between 1,800 square feet and 2,500 square feet,so we're not trying to come in and shoehorn small units. The reference to the gap housing was the reference to the recognition that where this project is located there is a certain market price that will be supported. And we believe that that market price is going to fall within the range of gap housing. This is never going to be five and$600,000 units. So our plan was 200 units of single-family with a reconfigured native preservation being scraping down and building a wetland and going off-site for a full 7.72 acres. We had even talked about with staff a ratio of 2-1,which would have meant we would be providing 15.5 acres,almost,in exchange for the deviation. Plus you would get the on-site recreative preserve. Staff wasn't supportive of that,so we haven't—we felt it made no sense to move forward with that as we sit here today. But we want to build a nice single-family project on this site. We think the price points are in the price points that people are asking to be delivered for skilled workers as well as teachers and firefighters and sheriffs deputies. So that's the goal. So we could limit the deviation to single-family,not for multi-family. But otherwise,you know,we're going to have to just respectfully agree to disagree. And we can't come back--we're not going to come back with a reconfigured preserve because we know it will not work for our single-family development. We've looked at it.Can we fit 7.72 even including getting credit for the Water Management District? And the answer is no,we lose too many lots,the project is not economically viable. So it doesn't make any sense to come back and show you something that we know we can't live with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got a question of staff that might dovetail into something you just said. Is there--I thought I remember reading and I've got to go back to be sure,maybe you guys know—a change in the preservation if you qualify for the affordable--some affordable package? I thought we had some leniency, if someone was doing an affordable project,to allow a modification in the preservation. And the only reason I'm suggesting that is maybe that's what the applicant may need to do is commit to a required number as affordable if that's in the code. If it isn't in the code,then no. But I haven't read it for a long time in that section of the code. There was a project in Immokalee that I thought tried to benefit from that. And it's been years since that was discussed. I see you're conferring. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: We could take a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a break for 15 minutes and see if that's a possibility.And we'll come back at 10:30 and resume and then go right into the AUIR after that. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody,if you'll please taking your seats,we'll resume the meeting. During the break Nicole Johnson showed me the sentence that she thought I might be referring to,I think it is. It says that if you're going to do all affordable housing you get to waive the preservation requirements,or something to that effect. And I know you're not going to do that. Did staff fmd anything else? MR REISCHL: That was what we saw also,that for affordable housing,which is true affordable housing,then you can take an equal percentage of the preserve off-site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you guys are not willing to commit that this be gap housing on a stricter process? MR YOVANOVICH: I don't think any developer has willingly committed to a I5-year deed restriction. That's the killer. That's why you don't have affordable housing being constructed in Collier County. Pane 19 of 36 Packet Page-209- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 We certainly have been willing on other projects to market to and sell to people who qualify for workforce housing. The stumbling block has always been for that person who buys the house to have to live with a 15-year commitment. We think that that's why you're not getting the development you want. If you were to get rid of the 15-year commitment,there might be an opportunity to discuss it.But the 15-year commitment is the deal killer,because nobody wants to buy a house knowing that should they get relocated they have to sell it to someone who is in their same exact circumstance. So it's--the price isn't the problem, usually,it's the 15-year commitment.And I don't know a way around that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either,but I thought we'd just explore that possibility,depending on how it was written. And unfortunately it's written in a manner that doesn't sound like it will work. Fred? MR.REISCHL: Mr.Chairman,we also discussed a possible deviation to that section that would widen it to gap housing and percentages taken off-site. But if its 15 years,I don't know if that's--that's not in the LDC,so I don't know if-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain,just for purposes of discussing this,everything you're referring to deals with affordable housing density bonuses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR.YOVANOVICH: We are not asking for a density bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you're not,Rich. MR.YOVANOVICH: So my point is is you can,if you want to,being staff,Planning Commission and the Board,customize an approach. If you want to customize an approach to provide for workforce house,we basically are telling you the market's going to lead to that. But,you know,I don't know what else to do because it doesn't seem like anybody's been willing to customize an approach when somebody's willing to use with—to develop within the density they're allowed to under the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you.Appreciate the effort to look that language up during the break. Do you have anything else? Applicant,anything else you want to add? MR.YOVANOVICH: No,but I do have a process question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR.YOVANOVICH: But I guess--I mean,if you ultimately--are you going to recommend denial,are you going to recommend approval? I don't know how—without the deviations? I don't know how this is going to go. So rll ask my question after you all elect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After we all elect what? MR.YOVANOVICH: Which way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,my question after you got done speaking was to find out from staff and the county attorney how we could approach this if this board—and maybe I should poll the board first—what is the inclination of this board as far as deviations three and four? Does anybody— COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just think there's a need for that type of housing there,single-family in that price point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just--if there was a way to get there. The preserve,you know,if you're getting twice as much land someplace else,to me that's a good thing. But I get it that you need preservation on that area. I don't know if that strip could be a little narrower just to make up the five whatever acres it is or--if that still wouldn't work for— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they're saying no.I mean,from what I understand they're willing to leave the South Florida Water Management preserve area because they have to. And I've already suggested they could count that as part of their preserve that the county requires to make up an additional five,but that's not where they want to go,from my understanding. And I— COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it would be next to the Saddlebrook preserve up to the South Florida Water Management area that you have?That's still two— Page 20 of 36 Packet Page-210- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 MR.YOVANOVICH: What we're proposing is that we have an on-site preserve of roughly 2.8 acres. It will be a wetland preserve,okay?That's what we're proposing. And we're proposing--but we get no credit for that from the county. So please don't say--we are going to have a preserve on our property. We will go off-site for 7.72 acres which we're required to have 7.72 acres of upland preserve under the current code. So we're going have to 2.8 acres of preserve,we're going to have our landscape buffers and we're going to have the yards in this community. It's going to be a green community.It's not going to be total asphalt and it's going to be nice sized houses at a price point that people have been saying please bring that type of product to us. So there's a way to get there. The way to get there is to approve the deviation. You're still going to have 2.8 acres of on-site preserve. I'm sure that whatever birds fly to that wetland preserve can go next door and find a tree to rest on. I don't think you need to have trees on our site for birds that might be attracted to this wetland. And if there's a—the way to get there is to agree to the deviation in this location.Otherwise we're not going to get there and you'll have whatever preserve exists today which is that long skinny piece and you won't have single-family housing. MR ARNOLD: May I add something? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But you said you would give 15 acres off-site? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. MR ARNOLD: If I might add one other thing that really didn't come up,but the code for a commercial and industrial PUD,if it were only that,requires 15 percent native vegetation preservation rather than the 25 percent that applies for a mixed used project as we're asking. So the preservation requirements for straight industrial/commercial project would be 10 percent less than you have today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes,I was going to say that I can't support this petition with deviation four. I think that there's an important point to bring out about the policy that this influences if we would support such a deviation,because it directly impacts whether or not we want preserves in the urban area. And I think the answer to that is yes. The code is clear,it gives a provision for off-site location of preserves when it is one acre. In some cases where it's been 1.1 acre we as a board have approved that off-site preserve location. But we're talking here seven times as many acres,roughly. And I think it's a bridge too far for me to support it with that deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne,I understand you guys have actually produced a plan that laid this project out. And I'm not asking you to put it on record;but I know it's been discussed with some staff. Where were you going to go put the residential in this project? How did you lay the project out? If you don't mind,just-- MR.ARNOLD: The last iteration that I saw that Barron Collier Companies were looking at had a couple of commercial out-lots fronting Davis Boulevard. There's a frontage road connection to the east,so the areas south of the frontage road would be commercial. The balance of the site would be residential. Sort of like that. The commercial would be south of the pen,the residential would be to the north. MR.YOVANOVICH: This aerial might help.This road would connect up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if the--the reason I'm trying to understand this,and maybe staff can help me with it,they're going to be primarily then residential,even though it's mixed use,because of the commercial component's almost forced by the road that's coming through on the south up against Davis. We are looking at 25 percent for all the property, even though the ratio of acreage to commercial is substantially different? I mean,looks like they're going to be 80 percent maybe residential and 20 percent commercial? And—but the trigger for the amount of preserve is based on it being any amount of mixed use? MR.REISCHL: Mixed use or residential,right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,so because we don't have any ratio allowance in the code,so if they're doing—say they had 100 acres and they've got 80 of it residential,then 80 percent of that project then would be at a certain percentage for the residential component and the balance would be at a commercial component. We don't have anything Iike that. Page 21 of 36 Packet Page -211- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 MR.REISCHL: No,but that could be a deviation that's in the code,if that's what you're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'm just trying to find a solution. Because it's not a bad idea to put residential here. And if they're going to do that much residential,I don't know how much acreage is involved. And I don't even know what the computation is different between 15 percent and 25 percent. Is that what the number difference is if residential is 15? So maybe there's an opportunity to get to an acreage that you could keep in the residential portion. COMMIISSIONER ROMAN: Residential is 25,I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just the opposite. MR.BELLOWS: I just want to point out those percentages are in the Growth Management Plan,not in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that takes care of that deviation idea. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,ma'am. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I just want to go over the options for the board. If each of the board members is not supportive of the two deviations,you have either two options: One is to approve it with the condition for the two deviations which applicant has said they won't support,in which case it will go to the Board on regular agenda for the Board to discuss which way we want to go on those two conditions. And at that point if applicant wants to withdraw their petition because they don't want it rezoned,then they could elect to do that. The other option is to go with motion for denial in which case it would go on the regular agenda as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my concern is if we are recommending approval subject to the denial of those two deviations or one or whatever this board decides on,how do we send it forward without knowing where the preserves are going to be? Granted,we can utilize the preserve configuration that's on the current master plan,but there are a couple of things wrong with it. Contrary to Mr.Yovanovich's concern of not counting it,I think we should count the South Florida preserve in this particular instance as part of the 7.7. But the previous configuration didn't take that into consideration. And also was for two acres more than 7.7. It was about nine something. So no matter what happens,the configuration that was there before isn't correct for what we're dealing with today. So if we don't go along with the deviation,that means the master plan needs to show the configuration,or at least we're used to seeing a preserve area configured on the master plan as it goes to the Board. Is that a necessity if we want to deny deviation four? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well,at the Board level if the Board wants the preserves on-site,then they would need a master plan that depicts the location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,so they'd have to— MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I suppose you could recommend to the Board that it stay in the location of the existing preserves,you know,unless staff can recommend an alternate location. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It seems to me that if we would proceed in that way that we're leaving too many loose ends for the Board to sort out at their level. I think that a tighter package would be to have either way,either take the vote to recommend denial full out or tie up those loose ends before we send it to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,but to tie up the loose ends we need the cooperation of the applicant on our potential denials of those two deviations,and they're not in that position to do that. But the other side of the coin is there's nothing problematic with some of the language cleanup we've suggested for the text of this request. Putting residential there isn't going to be a detriment. So Pd still like to see the Board see that as a positive but let our recommendation on the preservation and the sidewalks be the thing that the Board then has to determine if they want to support our recommendation or go with their own. I'm just trying to figure out how to give it to them. I know we can't deny it outright,but that doesn't give the Board answers,it just gives them a package that hasn't been refined. And one thing the Board has is a lot on their plate. They've got volumes of data to read for each Page 22 of 36 Packet Page-212- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1, 2015 meeting. And if we can clean this up with the exception of those two things and somehow go to them with that,at least they know if they want to go along with our recommendation of denials then the rest of it works and they've got a project that's at least as well packaged as we could put together.That's what I was trying to get there for. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But don't we need that cooperation that you just mentioned? I mean, we need that diagram. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why I was trying to ask the county attorney,how we can proceed if we don't agree with the deviation. I would suggest we could craft some language to indicate that if we agree that we don't want to support deviation number four that the master plan,should the Board accept that as a recommendation,that they get the credit for the South Florida preserves on the north side and that the preserve area on the west side extend down as far as necessary in its current location to make up the difference of the 7.7 acres. Then we've got the credit that they're getting for the north side and we've got the balance of the acreage to make up to be consistent on the west side. I don't know of a better way to craft it without asking them to do another master plan which they're not agreeing to do,which I can understand their possession on that. That's the only suggestion I had to get there. But I'll certainly go with what this board wants to further discuss. Diane,did you have anything you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,I will not be supporting this because of the two deviations.The problem is, like Rich said,an exception.Until his project he brings before us and that's a special exception too. It's exception after exception,and I will not deviate from this one. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well and there's three standards I've tried to use in all the issues that come before us. And they're the three Cs: Concurrency,compatibility and consistency.And repeatedly we address those in every aspect. And this one's hitting them fine,we can get into the concurrency and compatibility.Where I am--problematic for me is this consistency item on deviation four. And I haven't been able to get past that. I tried to find a solution over the weekend and over the last few days. I was unsuccessful. And I don't know how to get there without triggering a consistency issue that I had a real problem with and I just can't--so I can't support that deviation. I certainly couldn't vote to do that. So Wayne? MR.ARNOLD: Mr, Strain,I would suggest that your approach of crafting—if otherwise you like these changes,my fear is if you deny it outright none of your changes move forward.It's a straight denial. It's not denial subject to stipulating all these other modifications,and including the residential. So I think to me the better approach for the Board's consideration is you like the other changes but you don't like the two deviations.And I think your executive summary--and I'm pretty sure that Nicole and her folks are not going to let the Board not see the requests that we've made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me float something--first of all,we'll close the public hearing. I'm going to for discussion purposes suggest something to this board to see how you all feel it might or might not work.And we'll get right into the meat of it. And that is that we would support approval of the project, recommend approval with the discussion items that we've had in regard to the changes to the grammatical part of it. The other items that we would clean up is that if a residential is used in the commercial it would only be if the commercial remained from C-1 to C-4 uses. We would deny deviation number three and require sidewalks on both sides of the streets. We would deny deviation number four and require the preserves to be on-site with the caveat that the current preservation plan can be modified so that the applicant may benefit from the credits of the South Florida preserve to count against the 7.7 that they're calculated to need and that the balance of what is needed to make that number stays in that western alignment to the point as far as it has to go south to make up the difference in acreage. And then the buffer along I-75 needs to have a wall and needs to adhere to the section of the code because they didn't ask for deviations,and that's the cleanup item they're going to come back with. Page 23 of 36 Packet Page-213- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 And that the single-family housing will be between 1,800 and 2,500 square feet. That's the conditions I think would get us to at least a recommendation to the Board that acknowledges the benefits of the project in regards to the uses they're asking. It cleans the use language up and provides an option for the Board to consider requiring the preserves to remain on-site. I don't know how to do it— MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair,I just wanted to note for the record that the standards that we've applied to deviations for textural changes is the standard that applies to master plan changes under Section 10.02.13.A.3,and that standard is the deviation will not have a detrimental effect on the health,safety and welfare of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. So I think then our denial of deviation two and three is because if we decide to do that would be because it would have a negative impact on the health,safety and welfare of the residents. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Three and four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three and four,I'm sorry. Good catch. Three and four. I was thinking of the way it was written previously. Okay,does anybody have any comments on that? MR.YOVANOVICH: Am I allowed to have a comment? Over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure,rd like to hear your input. MR.YOVANOVICH: Not that we're agreeing to it,but if you really want to talk about instead of being so definite on what the preserve needs to look like,by simply adding five acres to the south,maybe you would want to change your recommendation to it being the configuration be consistent with the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. I think it provides some additional flexibility that may help make it work. So if that modification is fine with whoever might make the motion,Pm fine with it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it would be on the corner of 7.72 acres? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would retain the 7.72 on-site. They would get the credit for the South Florida Water Management preservation to the north,and they would make up the rest of it on-site as allowed by the Land Development Code. MR.YOVANOVICH: Not that we're agreeing to that,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR.YOVANOVICH: --what you're proposing is a line in the sand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it got us to a point of discussion to get there,so that's what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve with all the stipulations that you just listed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the changes that we just discussed with the applicant? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that includes denial of deviation three and four;is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,well I'll second. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,four is denial? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four is a recom—four is the preserves and three is the sidewalks,and we're recommending denying three and four.And then substitute for four,we're suggesting the language that we just crafted for the north preserve and then letting the rest of it remain on-site in whatever location the LDC allowed,so they still will get 7.7 acres on-site. Page 24 of 36 Packet Page -214- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1, 2015 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that was your motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the motion that Karen made,I seconded it,and now we had discussion. All those in favor of the motion,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 3-1. Thank you. That gets us to the end. And good luck with the Board of County Commissioners. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,Pm confused. Do I have to come back for a consent hearing since I got denied? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,and that's another--I'm sorry,it's a good point. In fact,we've got two more cleanup issues. We need to vote as the EAC,which I would suggest we just mimic the vote as the Planning Commission. And then we need to vote to have this come back on consent so we can see the final language. Is there a motion to those two? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make the same vote of approval as the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll second it Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. MR.YOVANOVICH: And I'm assuming the county will write the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't done consent yet. We're going to do consent next. Is there a motion to have this come back on consent? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. MR.YOVANOVICH: And Pm assuming that county staff will write the replacement language or whatever language you're going to draft and send to the Board for purposes of the native preservation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine,we can--yeah,that can be done by the next--we'll have it here for consent. I'lI be glad to work with Fred and Ray on it so we can give it to the Board when it gets back. Page 25 of 36 Packet Page-215- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 Okay,with that,we thank you and we'll see you in consent in a couple of weeks. (Time is 10:54 a.m.) ***Next item up we be the AUIR,Annual Update and Inventory Report. Let me get that agenda back up. This item has been rescheduled from our 9-25/15 CCPC meeting,which was last Friday.It's the annual review of the Annual Update and Inventory Report for 2015. And this isn't legislative. Heidi,we don't need swearing in and disclosures,do we? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,you don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think so.Okay. We usually start--and by the way,Corby had handed out a Policy 4.2 on a single sheet for us during break. And we normally start out with a discussion with Mike Bosi giving an overall to it and then we have two departments here to discuss this with: One is our potable water utility section and the other would be stormwater management. Okay,Mike. MR.BOSI: Good morning,Planning Commission. Mike Bosi,Planning/Zoning Director. Won't have a very elongated presentation.Just as a reminder,as the Chair has pointed out,this is the Annual Update and Inventory Report. We go over our category A buildings,we go over our category B buildings,we describe the populations that we expect within the next five-year period,how we're going to meet the levels of service that are associated with each one of our infrastructure and service providing departments. Essentially this document is intended to ensure the Planning Commission,the Board of County Commissioners and the citizens of Collier County that we're going to maintain the levels of service that they've come to be associated with the county and what they've bought into,so as we add population,those services won't diminish. Every year ifs a snapshot of where we're at in time. One of the things that we have most particularly paid attention to obviously is the rate of growth. This is the--since 2010 we have basically had anywhere between 1.9 to just under a two percent growth rate annually. We've maintained that level at 1.89 percent annual growth rate. Basically we're adding somewhere between five and 7,000 new members of our community on a yearly basis. And I think what you've seen within the housing recovery is a reflection that that steady stream of growth has had that positive effect,and we've issued on a regular basis COs to reflect those populations. Contained in the program is basically an update from what we provided from last year.Here's the new improvements that are contained:The primary drivers where the money is really being spent is within our transportation department;within our stormwater component as well. Each--as we've done in the past years,we've had individual presentations. This year we're doing a little more abruptly,and I would just ask whatever questions that the Planning Commission may have for myself or any one of the members that we've invited here we'll feel free to entertain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Mike,the one item that I believe we're going to probably weigh in on as a vote would be the Capital Improvement Element. MR.BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need to weigh in on the rest like we have in the past, if I'm not mistaken. MR.BOSI: No,really the only one for a requirement would be the recommendation from the Planning Commission on the proposed CM,which updates the Capital Improvement Elements of our Growth Management Plan. And those are the five-year program of new constructions for roads,for potable water,for utilities and the allocation indicated within the book. And the Chair--Mark,we did have an addition to the CIE that we have to update from a textural standpoint,and it's just updating the dates really to how the school board and the board CIE interrelate with each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to tell you,I think the staff and all the departments did a fine job in getting the templates and putting this package together. Page 26 of 36 Packet Page -216- 1/12/20169.B. October 1,2015 We've worked on it a lot over the years.And I remember the very first one back when Joe Schmitt was administrator and it came to us,and we spent a full day or more on some of these with the productivity committee at some points. And as it progressed over the years I think the department saw the kind of concerns and questions these panels bad. And I now notice that everything's in alignment. We're using standardization across the board for population,and all the other elements that need to be part of this. So I'm very pleased with the way this product's come out. And I think ifs a good template to move forward with,and hence the reason why we need limited questions today. And I appreciate that,all the effort the departments have put into it.They did a good job. MR.BOSI: And we most certainly are very happy to hear that sentiment,but we recognize that the direction and the improvements have been a collaborative effort between the staffs efforts,but also direction from the Planning Commission. You mentioned the productivity committee.There was a three or four-year period where they were involved within the process. And the productivity committee was a disbanded advisory board that was made up of former business leaders that really brought a degree of efficiency to the process and collaborative effort with the planning commission that did help the process. And their imprint still is felt within the document today. So we appreciate those word,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. And with that,ladies first. Well,I think Pm totally outnumbered here today. Tom is way down at the end. We'll ask the utility to respond to Commissioner Ebert's concerns. MR.CI-IMELIK: Thank you,Commissioners.Tom Chmelik,Public Utilities,for the record. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, good morning.In looking at your AUIR you've added three new areas? MR.CHMEL.IK: Yes,that's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which is great.We've just got to get the Estates in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as you want to pay the lineal foot price of that,I'd be more than happy for it. But right now the last numbers we got would have been hundreds of thousands of dollars per lot. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Remember I said I was going to have some fun with you today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,you did. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The other question that I had was answered during the break time. I'm happy to see that more is coming on. I think ifs great. I think you've done a great job on this. Chris—when Chris was there,we'd always ask Chris,everything was always up to par.But I am very--I mean,you really see the big areas that were added and that is good to see. I think the other question was answered,yes. MR.CHMELIK: Very good. Thank you very much. MR.BOSI: And for the benefit of utilities and the time that they spent here,I did want to at least point out one thing that I always like to point out. Sometimes as government we're criticized for inefficiencies in not being a direct benefit in a lot of the efforts that we've done. Mr.Dan Rodriguez and that solid waste team in the recycling program,if you notice,and I always like to point this out,if you notice,in 2000 we had a 1.23 annual disposal rate per person, over a ton per person. By 2015 we're more than half that,we are at.52 tons per person capita rate. And that's by the efforts that they have done with the new recycling program. And I know that we're moving on to the commercial land uses and are trying to improve that rate,but I.think this is significant. When I started in 2006 with the AUIR,it was 2017,2018 that we thought we needed a new landfill. And you know about new landfills and trying to set those,talk about nimbyism and a real tough set. We have now extended out to 2067,2068 before the useful life of that landfill starts to hit the end point. So I think those are--this is an opportunity to at least recognize,you know,the solid work that Solid Waste has done and the continued efforts that utilities has provided to the county. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mike,thank you. I knew Mr.Rodriguez was here. He knows I'm Page 27 of 36 Packet Page-217- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 a great recycler. I under—there's two things I wanted to ask him,because it has picked up every since the big cans came out for recycling. Are you having problems with businesses recycling? MR.RODRIGUEZ: Good morning,Planning Commissioners. For the record,Dan Rodriguez,your Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Division Director. The businesses Collier County could do a lot more in recycling,absolutely. About three years ago we did a waste composition study of your landfill,the materials coming to the landfill. And what we found out is that still 60 percent of the material going in the landfill is recyclables: Cardboard,plastic,aluminum. The really good news is thanks to our Board of County Commissioners,our County Manager and our administrator we have programs in place to educate but also to potentially update our recycling ordinance to make it—it already is mandatory,but actually to provide that mechanism for those businesses likely Lee County where it's mandatory to have single-stream recycling at businesses. So we hope to bring a proposal to our administrator,County Manager and get Board direction on that this year. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The only other one thing is the bears. Florida Wildlife has been around to a lot of the communities,and they're telling people to get garbage cans that have a lock on them. And I have called your department and we do not--Collier County does not have that. Is there a way you can tell Florida Wildlife to stop telling people this? Because we can't provide it to them. MR.RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And in fact,we've been in several meetings with the wildlife agency. And for the few complaints that we get in the county,bear sightings are not complaints,but it's the actual taking the trash container,things like that. It doesn't merit to have the residents put their garbage can out three hours before the pickup. It just is physically impossible. In addition to that,we have a national award-winning automated collection program.That's why we have some of the lowest rates for waste collection assessment in the state and certainly competitive nationally,because of that automated system. The good news is technology is advancing.They will eventually have a container that will work with that system that is as bear proof as possible. And we have pressure on Waste Management to bring that to our community,and once it does come to fruition we'll certainly bring it to the Board's attention to gain their approval and recommendation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. MR.RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. Last year you basically said that we still needed to do more in commercial recycling. It was either last year or the last time the AUIR came before us. And I just heard you say the same thing again. And I'm wondering what milestones do you have, what timeline do you have,and what specific things are we going to do in the near term to enhance commercial recycling? MR.RODRIGUEZ: That's a great question.And as you know,we've just come out of a recession, one of the greatest recessions that we've ever experienced in our lifetime,and we didn't want to put that burden on the businesses just yet. We wanted to give them an opportunity to basically rebuild themselves and get our community back on Iine where it was five,six years ago. And what we're doing is we're actually laying out those pieces of the ordinance that need to be updated so that businesses could easily bring in contractors that could provide single-stream recycling. So—and it takes a lot of education working with vendors. You have to have enough vendors in place that can provide that service so it's competitive. Six years ago we didn't have that. So with the recession for the most part in the past,we're seeing more and more vendors that can provide that single-stream recycling coming to this area. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: When do you see the program beginning to take shape in the county? MR.RODRIGUEZ: I would say with Board approval,probably over the next two years. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay,thank you. Page 28 of 36 Packet Page-218- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1, 2015 MR.RODRIGUEZ: But just if I could add to that. As far as commercial recycling,we've advanced in many other areas. The construction demolition area,many of our contractors in this community recycle more than 70 percent of their material. The concrete does not go into the landfill actually goes to reef material.The national resources department has done an outstanding job in developing six reefs. And we've probably put the lion's share of that material that came from the landfill that was recycled. In addition to that,we've seen several vendors come to the industrial park that provide recycling for metals,plastic,cardboard,more so than in the past. And we're seeing larger volumes of that material. And lastly and just as important,our hazardous waste has increased. The collection of hazardous waste in Collier County has increased over the last three years from 600,000 pounds to just over 2.7 million pounds. So we're making advancements across the board.And most of that hazardous waste does come from the small commercial businesses. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And so when you're looking at improving recycling for commercial businesses,are you speaking just small businesses,mostly the restaurants,those business types? MR.RODRIGUEZ: I'm speaking all businesses,whether they're small or large. If you go to any restaurant,department store or clothing store,look for a recycling container.What we want to see,the vision for the future,is to see a recycling container next to every waste container. So similar to our residential collection program Ws a matter of opening the correct lid. So that material does get reused and we capture that value of that material. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And it was interesting that you used the term burden when you described—you didn't quite want to put the burden on those businesses yet. MR.RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Is the challenge getting the right stuff in the right container?Is that what you're addressing as the burden?Or what exactly is the burden? MR.RODRIGUEZ: The challenge is getting the containers at the businesses. And it's just a matter of developing the correct policy that affords them the opportunity,the time to bring those on and budget accordingly. But we've done business cases that show that the more you recycle the less frequency and quantity of waste material has to be hauled out so therefore you can reduce the cost of your waste disposal bill,which will more than offset your recycling bill. And there's perfect examples in other communities. We were the first in the state to provide single-stream recycling containers at the residential level. And it works wonderfully. Close to 80 percent of the material that's put curbside by residents is recycled. We can do the same thing with businesses. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you so much. MR.RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Dan,appreciate it. Okay,with that,the remaining department that I had questions on was the stormwater department, and Jerry is here. Let me explain--I'Il explain to the Board why I have a concern. As you all know,Haldeman Creek was moved to this panel to discuss the docks that are going in the Haldeman Creek area. And unbeknownst to this panel,in 2006 when the docks to the north side of Haldeman Creek were presented,the documents then didn't show it to be a drainage canal.They called it a canal right-of-way. And there are a couple other things. And they didn't show it was owned by a private property either. But when Haldeman Creek came through they provided a more detailed survey that's required and in that survey it culled it out as a drainage easement and cited the sections where it was culled out. Well,likewise,you haven't seen it yet but there's another one coming to the Planning Commission called Henderson Creek and it too is in a county drainage easement. That one's very carefully annotated as a county drainage easement. Both instances we're dealing with dock extensions. Now,if you look at the zoning maps on these tributaries you'll see that while they go back up into the waterway,I could not find a dock extension issued on any of these tributaries at all. Now,I did see docks that Page 29 of 36 Packet Page-219- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 are further than 20 feet out in the water. Some were there before the boat dock extension process came into being,some may have been there unbeknownst to anybody. But as far as official processed boat dock extension requests,I didn't see any. And that brings in a concern when we start seeing more of these coming through. We have one in Haldeman that's still being debated,we have one in Henderson that's still somewhere in the process. And in looking at the stormwater AUIR data--and Jerry,on Page 4 you have a map. I don't know if you've got it loose-leafed,but it would be nice if you could put that on the overhead. Ifs Collier County major stormwater canal system. And that's the map that brought the most questions to me regarding what I needed to talk with stormwater about today. MR.KURTZ: Jerry Kurtz,for the record,Collier County Principal Project Manager and Stonnwater. Mine's all marked up so Mike's going to put up a clean copy for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You see the third line on the right when it says unmaintained?That's green. And that corresponds to the tributaries that have been coming in,the tidal waters that have been coming in in discussions that we've had on Haldeman Creek and Henderson Creek. The county's--my understanding is the county's responsibilities or the county's activities stop where the weirs are. And downstream from the weirs the county isn't really involved as much as they are upstream from the weirs. I went to Big Cypress Basin to ask them where their involvement was and they have done.In the case of Haldeman,I checked with DOT.And DOT,because it was a DOT's easement to start with,and DOT believed they pass it onto the county. Henderson Creek is clearly Collier County. So what I need to understand,Jerry,is what would it take to take that line that says unmaintained and to do a study or consideration to see what it would take to maintain those and establish what we need in there so that when we have a dock request coming through that's above the 20-foot norm,which is usually within the sloped area of the creeks and they're easier to understand there,that goes deep out into the water,that the volumes that you need to service what's coming down from upstream are assuredly adequate so we don't have any problems under the worst case scenario. And that's the suggestion Pd like to make. And I found some language throughout your document, and I'll walk you through,that I think could be fitted in if the board so chooses to do that. And let me turn to page--first reference is on Page 28 under FY 1620 project descriptions you have stormwater planning. And it says: Long-range strategic planning for future program progression,capital improve project and identification and prioritization,and then specific basin issue evaluation and funding appropriation. Then if you turn to Page 13 under attachment--not Page 13,Page 34 under attachment B,system inventory and GIS database report. The objective is to maintain a complete and current inventory of all existing county maintained stormwater and surface water management systems. And then under considerations,the second line,it says: The data base currently includes 100 percent of the main canals and ditches and the water level and flow control structures and 90 percent of the arterial roadway drainage infrastructure. It's paragraphs like that that I'd like to see encompass or at least have your department weigh in on what it would take to encompass these tributaries that are the receiving waters after your weirs that nobody seems to look at. And also I notice they're not maintained in Henderson Creek. They're asking for a dock extension, yet I walked out on that creek and I know it's got a lot of muck in it. So I'm not sure we would need dock extensions if we have a basis for maintaining them. And the opportunity might be a policy or something that originates from people putting docks in these locations can do so if they de-muck them and they clean them up. That would save your department money and effort but at least it would put us into a position where we're monitoring it knowing that we've got some methodology to clean some of these areas up so they're functioning like they were designed to function. And that's what I'm trying to ask you about. How feasible do you see that as a possibility for your department to consider?Is it something that if this goes to the Board--well,this will go to the Board--can Page 30 of 36 Packet Page-220- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1, 2015 this be added as a consideration for the Board to take up and discuss? Pd certainly like your thoughts on it. MR.KURTZ: Thank you. Yeah,I agree with all your comments,Commissioner. I certainly think we can do some things differently to better address the situation. I wanted to go back to the map a little bit and explain. The map,I think we need to change the label and the color green. Those areas,the label's not really appropriate,I wouldn't say. It was kind of a catchall label when we initially created the map. And the map is basically--the purpose of the map is to demonstrate really the split of operation and control of the canal system between us and the Big Cypress Basin,our partners. It's almost a schematic or a snapshot.Ifs meant to be user friendly and real easy to pick up and show basically what's the county maintained and what's the district maintained. The green again was kind of a category that was an attempt to pick up everything else,and it's mislabeled,I would say,to say its unmaintained. It captures tidal creek areas,natural waterways,it captures a lot of the system that's downstream in the last water control structure. And I wanted to say that it's a variety of things. It's not really areas that are unmaintained. These areas we have had efforts previously in a lot of them. It's like a case-by-case effort,though, however. These areas are different than the red and blue in the sense that the red and blue we had a lot of places we have legal access points that we've paid for and constructed,we have adjacent canal travel ways that we again spent a lot of money creating. So upstream in the freshwater part of this system is a lot different. The tidal areas,you know,the land is more valuable,you've got boaters,we've got preserve mangrove areas,so the access is not good for us. We have gone in there on a case-by-case basis,but it's really a lot different. And we just need to do a better job. You know,we tried to keep this map very simple,and I think it's too simplistic maybe. It's raising more questions that might need to be addressed in a better way. And some of these actually green areas are natural. I saw one that was a natural flow way through a slough downstream or south of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road,for example. I saw one that we finally negotiated with FDOT along 41 for them to understand and realize that that ditch is not being unmaintained,it's simply been transferred. We've maintained it in the past,it's being transferred to them,FDOT,for maintenance. So again is the green,it's mislabeled,it's not unnecessarily unmaintained,and specifically toward the tidal areas, Henderson and Haldeman. And the example I would say is Haldeman had gone fairly neglected for years,and it's a good example of it got to the point where the boating community mostly demanded that something be done with Haldeman. And we did form the MSTU,we dredged Haldeman. And,you know,we've talked previously,most always the level of service for boating becomes impacted way ahead of the level of service for flows and surface water movement.In other words,the complaints are going to come in about sand bars and boats running aground way before we would notice tremendous impact to getting the water out of the uplands through the tidal areas. So that's how Haldeman got addressed.Henderson I would say falls into the same category. We know that there's silt there,however,we're very confident that the controlled rate of discharge that has to flow through there by permits and regulatory constraints,it's working fine as far as that. We have talked about scenarios during storm events which taxes the system to its limits. We're still confident that like the Henderson wouldn't need to be dredged today to ensure that stormwater can flow out. It's adequate. Another thing I'd like to say in these tidal areas with the land value and the sensitivity and the other uses,boating and such,we always encourage the landowners to try to maintain their section along the water body first. And they do historically. Palm River,Cocohatchee,they get in there and remove debris and downed trees. They want our assistance,but often they have the resources and can get it done quick and easy. And historically it's worked out quite well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,see,rm trying to suggest that we look at establishing a policy for these docks that want to go in to a drainage easement that's controlled or owned by the county. Mike? MR. BOSI: And when you had first raised that issue,I would think that would be something that we Page 31 of 36 Packet Page-221- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 could mention. It's not really growth related to the AUIR in the Capital Improvement programming,but that most certainly is a land use policy that the Planning Commission is most appropriately to suggest to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think it is growth related in the sense of the AUIR because it would increase the maintenance cost of the canals that Jerry has laid out in his report.He's currently not including those. And so if we could--if we analyzed those on a regular basis and required people putting docks in on a drainage easement that is needed by the county or owned by the county,that they perform the maintenance that we would have had to do for the benefit of putting a dock in. Dock extensions on the other hand are a different animal. They're going out and they're at some point restrictive. Now,a single pole in the water may not be restrictive,but a single pole far out in the water that catches debris on an outgoing storm event in which we're trying to dry out the uplands so people can move back in their homes might be something to consider if it hasn't already been looked at. I have no concern over the ability of these easements to maintain what the volume is let out of the weirs on a regular basis. From day one my concern has always been public safety in a high storm event and getting this county dried out as quickly as possible by not making it worse by putting obstructions there that slow it down. And in my previous discussions with you you had indicated that that study hasn't been done under those conditions. And Pm suggesting let's look at that Let's look at how we can benefit from the need that some people seem to have to put docks in these locations and have them actually assist the county in maintaining what we need to have maintained. I don't know how to get there. I think it's something that ought to be looked at.We've got two instances where this board's had to deal with it,one so far and one coming up.And I just think it's a valid item. And that's my suggestion is that we get that specifically looked at. And when this goes to the Board,it's an item of topic that if they bring it up in discussion,if they say no,they don't want to deal with it or they say there's not a concern,so be it. Then at least this board hasn't got to look at this as an issue from here going forward,or neither will I under other conditions. MR.KURTZ: I agree with you. And I think we need to look at the boat dock extension approval criteria. And the Henderson boat dock proposal was a bit of an eyeopener for us,and I agree with you,I think we need to look at flow considerations and how the approval process would impact those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Jerry,I appreciate that. I have one other question. In your revenue sources you list two types of general fund. MSTD and a GF. What is the difference?What is the source of those monies? The difference connotate something. I don't know what an MSTD is. I mean,I know what a municipal district taxing is,but do we have one to do stormwater countywide? Is that where that money's coming from? I know like Haldeman Creek has their own. But this isn't for Haldeman Creek. So do you have MSTDs that are over your basins that generate I think it's 1.5 million a year? MR.KURTZ: Under what page are you looking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on the CIE now. I'm sorry,in the summary. And it's on--welI,Exhibit A of the CIE summary under stormwater. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Page 27. MR.KURTZ: Well,I can tell you that our funding—funds come to stormwater from two different funds: A portion of it comes from the general fund and then a portion comes from the overall,which includes the incorporated area. So there's a split of revenue coming in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what does in this case where it says MSTD-general fund and you've got it straight across 1.550, 1.5 million,50,000 a year for all the years. And I'm just wondering,what is that? I know what a general fund is,but I don't know what an MST-general fund is. Because a municipal taxing district isn't the general fund. At least I never understood it to be that way. MR.KURTZ: Pm not really sure. That's the split. It's listed again on our AUIR on our facility table one facility form. It's the same numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I checked that out. I just couldn't figure out what it stood for. MR.KURTZ: The way I understand it is some of the money comes from the fund that includes the Page 32 of 36 Packet Page-222- 1/12120169.B. October 1,2015 incorporated areas as well as the unincorporated. And the rest of the money comes from the areas that exclude the cities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Pm sure the money's coming in. I would--when you get time if you could just drop us an email or send to it Ray so we could get an explanation of that? That's all I'm looking for. I'm not questioning the validity of it,Pm just saying Pd sure like to know what it is a little more refined, if you don't mind. MR.KURTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you,Jerry. I did talk to you I believe when the Henderson was going to come up,and ask you a couple of questions there. You have done nothing in this creek,it's been a natural flow;is that correct? MR.KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And I've heard that like it goes under,what is it,951 to go to Rookery Bay? MR.KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't believe the county should be having to worry about these boaters,you're right. I mean,if they want something,to me,have them dredge it and,you know,maintain it. The problem is I know on Haldeman,trees have gone in there. And when this has happened they've called the county,the county said we're not responsible. They call the state,they're not responsible. They call the South Florida Water. Nobody wants to take responsibility,and there's where the problem lies. I feel that we should not get this county spending a lot more money on these,these are--especially probably Henderson when this is kind of a natural flow. And I was going to ask you in fact on Page 25 that green portion along Tami--is that part of the Henderson right there? Tamiami Trail East where it's in the green? MR.KURTZ: That is,yeah. Where it interconnects kind of 41 and 951? That is the Henderson, yes. It's red upstream indicating that the Big Cypress Basin maintains the upstream portion,and then downstream the last water control structure it's colored green.Yes,that's the area. And I would say that when a tree goes down and there's a problem,we--it's handled--it is handled case by case. It's relatively rare,but we do not ignore it. Most of the time,by the time we fmd out where it is,it's already been taken care of by the boaters along the waterway. We don't ignore it. We do try to find out where it is. And obviously if it stays and continues to fester and there's a buildup there,we are going to get concerned and start measuring whether it's a flow impact or a safety exact. And we've had a number of places where we've gone in. And they're relatively minor efforts, but to get something kind of obstruction addressed,we do. But it is case by case. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. I just know that these can--these can be a problem. I understand that the one that went down in Haldeman--I wish they weren't named so close together--FEMA came and took out.It was after a big event. MR.KURTZ: We did,for lack of a better word,we benefited after the storm event. We identified a lot of obstructions in these tidal water bodies. And since it was tied to the storm and it was a declared emergency,we did do quite an extensive job in inventorying the debris and ultimately did get FEMA to reimburse us for removal of all those obstructions. And that effort's lasted quite some time.We got Rock Creek cleaned out,a number of these water bodies. And again,stormwater is involved,stonnwater does care and we do monitor these downstream flow areas. Again,not as extensively as upstream where our access is good and our crews can get in regularly,but we do look at the downstream areas. And a lot of times the boaters kind of are our sentinels out there. They'll start telling us about a big sand bar or a log or something like that. Recently we went into Rock Creek,there was a big log there identified by kayakers,canoers,and that got removed. We were lucky where it was,we could access it from the edge of Airport Road. So,you know,I apologize if the perception was that we're not active in watching these areas. We are. But again,difficulty for boating and recreation is going to manifest itself much sooner than when we actually have an identified problem for flow or movement of stormwater out of our system. Page 33 of 36 Packet Page-223- 1112/20169.B. October 1,2015 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. MR.KURTZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Jerry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Now I'm confused. CHAIRMAN S"I'RAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're talking about Henderson. That's a drainage easement and it's the county's drainage easement. And it's not been cleaned out. And you're suggesting that property owners should clean it out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the property owners want to improve-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because I went back through the years in the Property Appraiser's and it was clean at one point and built for drainage for the water from 41 to drain down to 951. And it's labeled as the county's property. So shouldn't that be maintained and dredged and kept cleaned by the county? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'll answer that.What the problem is in Henderson,they have depth there that is impinged because the silt has built up substantially. When I walked out in that crook,I walked out,I was up to my knees in silt. So the solution to the property owner was instead of cleaning that silt out and cleaning out the debris on the bank Pll just put some more planks on the boardwalk and push it out into the creek further to get the depth. What Pm saying is we shouldn't be allowing that. We should tell them no,you're got the depth, go clean the silt out. And that would benefit the county because now we've got a private party who needs a benefit of that.And they're cleaning it up where the county doesn't have to because they don't need to put a dock in and especially extending it out. So I thought that was a way to solve the maintenance issues when they are pushing people further out into the water that don't need to be pushed out in the water. That was where I was going with that,Karen. MR.KURTZ: And that particular one,we'll absolutely look at that when it resurfaces again. I was talking to the attorney before the meeting and asking the status. And it's been pulled back,it's being revisited. So I think,you know,that was a bit of an eye opener for us,that whole proposal. And I agree with you and we'll be looking at that again when ifs resubmitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then they said there was rip-rap. And when I went out there there isn't rip-rap. There's debris from uplands thrown into our canal easement from the people who used to own the uplands. And you go out there and there's concrete block,broken off concrete chunks all in the waterway. And that's more the reason why there's a maintenance issue there. And if we could solve that maintenance issue by granting them a permit to put their dock in to whatever length is practical, once it's dredged,or once the silt's out of there,you wouldn't need the extensions. That then gets into an issue of restriction. So it just seemed like a logical way to approach it if the Board desired and if your department could look at it that way. MR.KURTZ: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was suggesting. Mike? MR.BOSI: Well,I just wanted to let you know Mr. Isackson has an explanation for the funding question that you had related to stormwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,great,thank you. MR.ISACKSON: Chairman Strain,Commissioners,Mark Isackson. Pm the Director of Office of Management and Budget. Each year we identify specific funding sources in the general fund,and then what we term the unincorporated area general fund.It's a separate unincorporated area that is essentially void of any incorporated area. So you have the general fund which encompasses the whole county where there was a millage rate of 3.5645 applied across that whole area,and then there is the unincorporated area general fund,which is unincorporated area. There's a separate millage for that on your tax bill at.7161. Page 34 of 36 Packet Page-224- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the MSTD? MR.ISACKSON: Well,it's probably mislabeled,Chair. So we can work with Mike and Jerry and the crew to try and clean up that language a little bit. But there's a--transfers into their stormwater fund come from him both of those particular areas. And where there's a deemed county-wide benefit,you'll see projects funded from that transfer from the general fund. When there's deemed unincorporated area benefits primarily then you'll have money moving in. So there's different funding sources for different projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I figured you were trying to indicate it was a different funding source but I couldn't figure out what it stood for. Now I appreciate your explanation. Thank you. MR.ISACKSON: Thank you,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,does anybody else have any questions involving the Annual Update and Inventory Report or the Capital Improvement Element? If not, is there a motion to recommend approval of the Capital Improvement Element? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. And the other point I'd like to ask,and it doesn't need a motion,Mike,when you approach the Board, will these concerns over the question on the stormwater section of it be at least articulated to the Board or be in your report? MR.BOSI: It will be articulated within the executive summary. The discussion point,whether we get into a stormwater discussion point or not,the November is a single meeting in the month. The tendency--we do not have a lot of time. And that's why I almost suggest that its probably maybe an issue that we bring up--we'll bring it up in the executive summary but direct us to bring it up at the next opportunity when we're in a discussion with the Board of County Commissioners related to dock extensions within the drainage easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,and that's going to happen at their next meeting,because you've got Haldeman coming to them. So it may all dovetail together. That would be good. MR.BOSI: That appeal between Mr.Pires and Mr.Yovanovich,I'm not sure how much I'm going to be able to get a couple of words in edgewise in terms,but I will— COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Go first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that gets us to the end of our agenda. There is no old business, there's no new business. ***Is there any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. Page 35 of 36 Packet Page-225- 1/12/2016 9.B. October 1,2015 COMMSSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here.Thank you all. ******************** There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:40 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION gjulk STRAIN,Chairman These minutes approved by the board on V as presented or as corrected 11 5 1 S Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,Inc., by Cherie'R.Nottingham. Page 36 of 36 Packet Page-226- CONSERVANCY 1/12/2016 9.B. of Southwest Florida ii...OUR WATER,LAND,WILDLIFE,FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. September 30, 2015 Mr. Mark Strain Chairman, Collier County Planning Commission Growth Management Department Comprehensive Planning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Sent via e-mail RE: East Gateway MPUD— PUDA-PL20140000548 Dear Chairman Strain and Planning Commissioners: The ConservancYof Southwest Florida, on behalf of our over 6,000 supporting families, would like to express our concern regarding BC Naples Investments, LLP's proposed Deviation #4, requesting removal of the required 7.72 acre on-site preserve to an off-site location as part of the East Gateway Planned Unit Development(PUD) amendment. We support staff in their recommendation to Not Approve Deviation #4 based on the following: 1. Per LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i.(d), the maximum acreage to qualify for off-site preservation is one acre. This request is inconsistent with the Code and ignores the ecological and quality of life benefits of retaining on-site preserves. 2. The request for deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i.(d) is not based upon supportable justification. The Conservancy believes Deviation #4 should not be approved, and we ask that if the Planning Commission recommends approval for this PUD amendment, Deviation #4 not be included in your recommendation. Inconsistency with intent of LDC Staff has done a thorough job in your Planning Commission Staff Report identifying the inconsistency of this request with the Code. The language within LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.I.(d)was written to implement Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.1(10), which required the LDC to create a process by which an applicant could request alternative means of satisfying their native vegetation 1495 Smith Preserve Way 1 Naples, Florida 34102 1 239.262.0304 I Fax 239.262.0672 1 www.conservancy.org Packet Page-227- 1/12/2016 9.B. PGaf2a'f requirements through mechanisms other than on-site preserves. One of the criteria for such an allowance was in Policy 6.1.1(10)e., which states: The size of the preserve required to remain on site is too small to ensure that the preserve can remain functional. Many months were spent in stakeholder meetings to discuss at what size the functional value of an Isolated" preserve diminishes. While the Conservancy advocated retaining even small preserves, especially in the urban area, we worked collaboratively with others to find a size threshold under which preserves may be allowed off-site without significant consequence. This threshold was identified as less than one acre for PUDs, as stated in LCD Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i.(d), and the Conservancy strongly believes that maintaining this limitation is critical. Requesting relocation of a 7.72 acre preserve off-site disregards the extensive stakeholder process that resulted in the current Code requirements. In addition, it overlooks the value of on-site natural habitat for urban and avian wildlife, and for human aesthetic and quality of life benefits. Request for Deviation Not Supportable As detailed in your Staff Report, CCME Policy 6.1.1(13)allows the County to grant a deviation from the native vegetation retention requirements under certain limited circumstances. However, the applicant has not met any of these requirements, nor have they identified any of these standards as the basis for their deviation. First, it appears the applicant, as detailed in their Deviation Justification submittal, is asking for a deviation from the incorrect LDC Section. Their deviation request states: Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.i.(a), Preservation Standards, a property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for properties zoned commercial where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size.' We believe that the referenced LDC Section they intended to cite is Section 3.05.07.H.11 1(a), which applies to properties zoned commercial. However, it is important to note that the East Gateway project is a PUD and is requesting amendment to a MPUD. Therefore, the proper LDC Section referenced should be Section 1 East Gateway MPUD Deviation Justifications. Revised 04/24/2015. Packet Page-228- 1/12/2016 9.B. 3.05.07.H.1.f.i.(d), which includes preserves less than one acre in size. This Section would be applicable to PUDs in general and this PUD amendment in particular. However, references to Code Sections aside, based on review of the applicant's Deviation Justification submittal, the following are the stated reasons in support of their request: 1. Applicant Justification for Deviation: "The quality of the native vegetation found on the property is not high quality and more than 50% of the site acreage is exotic infested.' LDC Section 3.05.07A1. defines Native Vegetation as including: All naturally occurring strata including canopy, understory and ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, except as otherwise provided in section 3.05.07 H.1.e. The term native vegetation is further defined as a vegetative community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species. The wording of this definition was deliberate, and acknowledges the unfortunate reality that there are very few unmanaged vegetated areas in Collier County not impacted by some degree of exotic infestation, which is exacerbated by the fact that exotics removal is not required until the development stage. The Conservancy was a participant when the County held stakeholder meetings, and we supported the current definition because while it acknowledges some vegetated areas may be so overrun by exotics that their value is diminished, in most cases removal of exotics will allow native habitats to once again function at a more optimal level. In addition, even exotic-infested habitats provide functional value for recharge, pollutant filtration and wildlife, including listed species. This definition also acknowledges not just the percentage of exotics infestation, but it identifies the importance of looking at all the strata present—canopy, midstory and groundcover. it does this because we know there can be significant exotics infestation at one or two levels, say the midstory and groundcover, but the canopy may have fewer exotics, and once you do exotics removal, you're left with functioning canopy and the ability for natural recruitment of native species within the midstory and groundcover. The applicant is not disputing that 30.87 acres meet the County's definition of native vegetation3, or that under the LDC they are required to preserve 7.72 acres 2 ibid. Packet Page-229- 1/12/2016 9.B. Cortse=a,ncy QE.CJ/2ul.5 Ptonr,i;z Fommission re fast Gateway MPctt, Pane 4 OI of native habitat. They are requesting a deviation because they do not agree with the County's definition as contained within the Code, and they do not wish to apply this definition to their project. Dislike of a LDC regulation is not a legitimate basis for granting a deviation. 2. Applicant Justification for Deviation: "No listed species have been identified on the property; therefore,the preserve area reduction will have no impact on any listed or threatened animals".4 The Staff Report corrects this assumption by clarifying that these preserves are not just for listed species, but are also important to accommodate urban and avian wildlife, in addition to being greenspace for residents. Greenspace Benefits Quality of Life Numerous studies demonstrate the benefits of urban greenspace and natural areas on quality of life considerations, such as residents' perception of general health. One such study concluded: This research shows that the percentage of green space in people's living environment has a positive association with the perceived general health of residents. Green space seems to be more than just a luxury and consequently the development of green space should be allocated a more central position in spatial planning policy.5 This and other studies confirm that, in general, people benefit from greenspace and natural vegetation within their living environment. What better way to provide such greenspace than in an on-site preserve? East Gateway Preserve Not isolated With regard to the benefit of a 7.72 acre preserve within East Gateway, the applicant, in their Environmental Supplement, states that: The two major roadways on the north and south boundaries of the site as well as the development to the east and west have isolated 3 Environmental Supplement for Collier County Zoning Application. East Gateway. Amended April 17,2015. Prepared by Turret!,Hall&Associates,3584 Exchange Avenue,Naples FL 24014.P.1 of 17. 4 East Gateway MPUD Deviation Justifications. Revised 04/24/2015. 5 Maas,J.,Verheij,R.,Groenewegen,P.,de Vries,S.,Spreeuwenberg,P. Green Space,Urbanity,and Health: How Strong is the Relation? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566234/ Packet Page-230- 1/12/2016 9.B. a=tsertkancv 9/J0,1207 5 Cc=lher Cc rt Fiala.,rro zOmirds io.n re at C2 ateway Mw10 J this property and made travel by terrestrial wildlife both difficult and dangerous.6 This statement is misleading, as East Gateway is directly adjacent to the 11 acres of preserve at Saddlebrook Village. In addition, analysis of South Florida Water Management District conservation easements and other County preserves within the immediate vicinity total approximately 85.32 acres(See Attachment 1). Within this context, an additional 7.72 acres within East Gateway would bring this total to 93.04 acres and would be a meaningful addition to the preserves in the immediate area. Moreover,there is a mosaic of preserved lands extending along the CR951 corridor, and the East Gateway preserve would be a complimentary addition to this network of conservation lands (See Attachment 2). It should also be explained that the East Gateway preserve configuration used in Attachment 1 is based on the existing PUD Master Plan. As part of the PUD amendment, the Conservancy recommends the preserve configuration be redesigned to better meet current LDC criteria. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Being Reestablished in Vicinity of 951 Corridor The Conservancy requested that Jeremy Sterk of Earth Tech Environmental review the East Gateway preserve in the context of his experience with endangered Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers (ROW) in the North Belle Meade and Picayune Strand State Forest(PSSF). Mr. Sterk has assisted Dr. Roy DeLotelle (DeLotelle& Guthrie) & Dr. Monica Folk(Milliken Forestry)with ROW permitting, management, and translocation activities in Western Collier County since 2005. According to Mr. Sterk the overlying goal has been to reestablish lost populations of RCW in Western Collier County. To this end and over the last 10 years, the PSSF and their scientists have been striving to achieve that goal. The work began in the northwest PSSF by installing artificial cavities in historic RCW cluster locations that had been abandoned due to habitat degradation. These "recruitment" clusters provide cavities for fledglings to utilize as they disperse in the hope that they will establish new active RCW clusters in areas that were formerly occupied by RCW. As part of permitting for Collier County's Resource Recovery Business Park, Dr. Folk and Mr. Sterk installed a RCW recruitment cluster on County preserve lands north of 1-75. In addition, habitat is currently being managed in preparation for the first RCW recruitment cluster west 6 Environmental Supplement for Collier County Zoning Application. East Gateway. Amended April 17,2015. Prepared by Turrell,Hall&Associates,3584 Exchange Avenue,Naples FL 24014.p.5 of 17. Packet Page-231- 1/12/2016 9.B. Conservancy 9/30/2015 Collier County Planning Commission re as Gateway MPttD Page 6 of 7 of Collier Boulevard on preserve lands within Naples National Golf Club (See Attachment 3). The preserve at East Gateway is not currently considered as viable RCW habitat and we are not suggesting that it be regulated as such. Neither is it explicitly needed for the success of these RCW recruitment clusters. However, any pine flatwoods (FLUCCS 411) and cypress-pine-cabbage palm (FLUCCS 624) preserves located in the Collier Boulevard and 1-75 vicinity, including a preserve at East Gateway, will provide potential opportunities for foraging RCW in the future. Wetland Creation On-Site The applicant has indicated they intend to create a small on-site wetland area for their storrnwater management system. It is logical to assume that such a created wetland could attract various species of listed and non-listed wading birds, which might utilize an on-site preserve for roosting or foraging, especially after the required exotics removal occurs. 3. Applicant Justification for Deviation: "The property is located in an Interchange Activity Center, which permit a wide range of land uses including intensive industrial uses including manufacturing, warehousing and distribution".7 The obvious observation here is that since the applicant is requesting addition of up to 250 residential units on the site, a preserve becomes even more important. The site should be designed to allow for the preserve to act as a buffer between residential and more intensive uses. The bottom line is that this is not a unique situation, design or location warranting deviation from the required native vegetation preservation standards. This is a request for a mixed-use development, where residential units are going to be built, and greenspace in residential communities does provide aesthetic and community value, in addition to the habitat value for urban wildlife and avian species. Conclusion In 2005, Conservation Collier spent over$700,000 for 5+ acres of"isolated" urban acreage called the Logan Woods Preserve. Prior to acquisition, this site contained melaleuca and Brazilian pepper, which "crowded out much of the existing native plants."8 However. 7 East Gateway MPUD Deviation Justifications. Revised 04/24/2015. 2 httr://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=2887 Packet Page-232- 1/12/2016 9.B. Conservancy 9/302/2015 Collier County Planning Commission re East Gateway MPU© Page 7 of 7 With the exotics now removed, native understory and groundcover plant species have begun to regrow from seeds that had laid dormant for many years in the top layer of soil. Ferns now carpet the ground where the melaleuca grew thickly and pine seedlings, once deprived of the light they needed to grow, have begun to spring up.....Raccoons, armadillo and many species of urban birds are also commonly seen here.9 And, according to the County's website, "This preserve was acquired primarily as urban green space."10 The foundational issue behind this request may be whether or not Collier County believes preserves within the Urban Area are still important. If this deviation is approved, a dangerous and negative precedent will be set, as other applicants are sure to also want out of the current obligation to retain native habitat on-site. The Conservancy believes the greenspace and native habitat value of urban preserves is extremely important from both an ecological and quality of life perspective, and is part of what makes Collier County such an exceptional place to live. The Conservancy asks the Planning Commission to Not Approve Deviation#4. I apologize for sending this letter so close to the Planning Commission meeting, but the Conservancy did not have the opportunity to meet with the applicant and their consulting team until earlier today. If you have any questions, please contact me at(239)403-4220. Sin170 ely, C 1/1114fig/1&) Nicole Johnson Director of Governmental Relations CC: Fred Reischl Rich Yovanovich Wayne Arnold Tim Hall David Genson 9 http://www.coliiereov.net/Index.aspx?page=2887 10 http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?rage=2887 Packet Page-233- 1/12/2016 9.B. R i " A iii: a •k i i W r �': 1 _ tet' aii R+' E w '4." W � � t LIR. 4__ i r .1.0.1-''.„ 44 t 4.1610* 1 f � aJ 1 ' a ... 1 W ii 01. 4 P,z. 1 !: J t% W Hr x n i N s'. z LL ' 41 � W ae _1_____,,,.,_,,,..::: ....m. Z ~Pl a ' w O.�; > O' o "`i f'n,17 izN 2l t 1 / 4. it,, 3" ,-o. .;,..-!:',. -1, :i.,-:";` � i .' ' p V z m y Li_' �� Z.d'W W 4 4 ,' ,f''4 4 , "' ''‘ ', ., '15r.,'' :,,":4," - n7-,..,.., •,'' !' 4041' II' -�.� ,,z 31 ..i Q s c kA o- fIC a 03 i r � i ��w . • .. '''.-.-7 3 a� on o ' c.` ? 1fi ,',..,„,''.'7., "* & . U.e 4. rY' " t ' " • 'x-- t�te. 41 +T'max " ex.._ .... _ et3L •Ar '�+`" 1 Packet Page -234- , /. Bp 1/12/2016 9.B. runoxs SY i drrz cI�sz�so waaor u�¢ nxirn MMIIIMIMMOIMM 9fC0`tZE fBEt) XY3 6C06-90t (BtZ.) 3N 0Hd� w �(' ^ 0119£ YCIia6'Ed `$'d'�d YN Epuoj,�''TQJ�j^ajr'M 1�"3u1 AQ 8A8ISalid $ 311 fl$ 'CI h�9'9'd 3H 'liVt! $491 �T,7 Gr "✓. 1 Q��A'�'�0� . ZZ{}.7 071 "I Y'1N37Y)J C2i1AN3 H93t H1tJY3 fNil la Mil `�Q�DN A�sNO ."',, �+` { a tic. , I , , acv sir - c ii! -1,-i-,",# n . A'x `1r i' �r _ � i. : :� Vi ti r atara aa.,wfir.., .., w. va _ { _ t g (= st Ppe Sa? C wA . ,1_,..,,F,4',r -. d f q 6) a. . a me • ( ) k s .. s 4S ;:'9 ,4,G"f: "` u`le* ' '`„4* r,Sy a`4 yi.. i- V "7 m 2 7 j,,., 3 4-4.t.:,,,,,4,--4,,,, ,,,,,o, . P! ....p-^ >, fry ass '�„ -A-'4‘.;..41; W�Yw � 1. 1 ti CI _ a r x�r rg w t "F = @ ( mac{ G. ° k {la11'A/AG 3/.1100:Ria7W..PCe 4 � 301VINOUNN 831dYN l Y 1 r r I i '�° 4 SONYI NOLLWW3BN0:/11iHLO ` 30 D3IW0:030:3:1sO ' d" h ° 30 d9LN00 �= 1 , �' - - - •:' 103POBd 40 ALN0rA N B3AN 3 ➢$:. - ., Ld D3U AiNft00 T131TI00 .�' _ - A1tl3d0tid 103renq L I R x v, elddV f dotd{4wo��qno�8 NalusAu�tfrap�Y l� N R!tWd PNad uagdw.td di rlrusI.LtOIN.MOina saWC3 S' 'Ofd/4=ata_papMad aweWahtle IM�1euaa/4 (Q. i71PUn gAli3akuNCM myrrr,s'as :.l:.ua ,4 w. - ',aga.iddy„„.„,,„„.„..„,.....4 J!q P®P!ti Jt seN rta9/tvxia,tda cul �I�Mae`y Ri,t'h?`. a r Packet Page -235- Z�� � � � 1/12/2016 9.B. 4 g� ys f 5i4 W1-1 V! A x 4 , V. ca0 l3Rf„�#}e���` t»'�4 Y'S % #r°2.; V ',f41,ii r.riY �W }. yeah jj� � x P, YS't §3 M nj � r c. EE._ .1 C3 rz , � ` - 3 0 XLH f/1 -I 7*--',...wsifsk;;,..,:.1,-.4.,„*.'-i''44 tie i ,''.,. ', .,,, , Djjj +�'.ift�e� x� 5+ e 13r�"� -s f 9[.x 4.=AJ di014—g a v� �11111 it s& dl z ta,,e ;� zw iq, Y S"2s '` zwoV11lj ihu"'� r',',"'„`',.l ! � . , xtC G0M� i �� x ',* trk1 - 1- t Km O1Rx ffffff} a. ;,,;.:',.',:„64-f'-'4.4.44:-;-3024, zcao'{ ,, ; + wax.�� SC'WW r' ru,_z c ^r �, ye r: to a O ` }Y d�r2 �' Iat�� w�zay '4< 4, a ` •.n Wt'" t to Or�qg r't: l 'i' ! IV H f: Q U p ff n � . d 6 • f . V4 .83 I. tx ( t� M , ii, gr w. s -vy"S.y tJ.-.s,e.-..=. C tuewq e Packet Page -236- 1/12/2016 9.B. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday,January 12,2016, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., the Board,of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the at 9 0 A Mof a.The title ofOtheinance.p proposed The is as commencel low OF COLLIER AN CCOUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2003-11, THE EAST GATEWAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY ADDING 250 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED IN ADDITION TO THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT ON THE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT AREA; BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST GATEWAY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING PERMITTED USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING DEVIATIONS; BY REVISING M THE MASTER PLAN; BY ADDING EXHIBIT B AND EXHIBIT N C, ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS,' BY REVISING Y DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS FOR THE PUD LOCATED ON kr) THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND WEST OF CR 951 IN SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, o COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 37.351 ACRES; N AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PETITION PUDA- f''i fv PL201400005481 L._ A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are E invited to attend and be heard. a "' m ai NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must 0 register with the County Manager prior to presentation of 5; the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be ra limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual TS to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. iri a If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or >= organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. a Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum w of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, U) written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall Wbe submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of z seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in ✓ presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Q cz Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board Uri will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and a therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the z 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 days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA TIM NANCE,CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk — (SEAL) No.848578 December 23,2015 Packet Page -237-