Agenda 02/23/2016 Item # 9A 2/23/2016 9.A.
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 consider an
Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development
Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district
with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)
zoning district to allow up to 100,000 square feet of commercial uses for a project to be known as
Westclox 29 CPUD on property located at the southwest quadrant of SR-29 and Westclox Street in
Section 29,Township 46 South,Range 29 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 9.5±acres; and
by providing an effective date(PUDZ-PL20150000660).
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) 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 the
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 a 9.5± acre rezone from the Rural
Agricultural Zoning District with a Mobile Home Overlay(A-MHO)to the Commercial Planned
Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District. This CPUD rezoning petition is proposing up to
100,000 square feet of commercial development of uses allowed in the C-1 (Commercial
Professional and General Office District), C-2 (Commercial Convenience District), and C-3
(Commercial Intermediate District) zoning districts. The Traffic Impact Statement analyzed a
shopping center for transportation impacts.
The Master Plan depicts one access point onto State Road (S.R.) 29 and two access points onto
Westclox Street, along with areas depicting a 50-foot building setback from a RSF-3 zoning
district, potential pedestrian interconnections, adjacent rights-of-way, and buffers. The majority
of the site is labeled as "Development Area," and no building details are shown. The petitioner
is seeking approval of one deviation for this petition.
FISCAL IMPACT: The CPUD amendment by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on
Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized
level of development. However, if the CPUD amendment is approved, a portion of the land
could be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public
facilities.
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the
impacts of each new development on public facilities. 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
Packet Page -13-
2/23/2016 9.A.
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: Immokalee Area Master Plan
(IAMP): Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone to be inconsistent with the
IAMP. The Neighborhood Center Subdistrict provides for convenience commercial uses, which
staff interprets to be those provided in the Collier County LCD, C-1 and C-2 zoning districts
(additional explanation in the CCPC Staff Report). The following proposed land uses contained
in the PUD are provided for in the C-3 zoning district or in the C-2 zoning district with square
footage restrictions.
• #4 Animal Specialty services, except veterinary (0752, excluding outside
kenneling). SIC Code is listed as #4 in C-3.
• #8 Auto and home supply stores (5531) SIC Code is listed as #8 in C-3 with
5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure.
• #48 Liquor stores (5921) SIC Code is listed as #80 in C-3 with 5,000 square
feet cap.
• #60 Physical fitness facilities (7911, 7991) — SIC Code 7991 is listed as #30
in C-1 and #53 in C-2, but with conditions not listed here and SIC code
7911 is listed as#68 in C-3 with discotheques excluded.
• #61 Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451, 9511-
9532, 9611-9661) SIC Codes are listed as#71 in C-3.
• #69 Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (5261) SIC Code is listed
as#79 in C-3 with 5,000 square feet cap.
• #70 Retail services — miscellaneous (5921-5963 except pawnshops and
building materials, 5992-5999 except auction rooms, awning shops,
gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and
whirlpool baths). SIC Codes 5942-5961 are listed as #61 C-2 with 1,800
square feet cap; This entire CPUD entry is listed as #80 in C-3 with 5,000
square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure.
Comprehensive Planning staff could find the petition consistent with the GMP if the C-3 Zoning
District Uses in Exhibit A are removed or if the missing restrictions and limitations are added, as
applicable. It should be noted that greater than 50 percent of the Neighborhood Center
Subdistrict which governs this area was redesignated to the S.R. 29 and Jefferson Avenue
Commercial Subdistrict to allow for the development of a big box retailer immediately north of
the subject site. This change within the IAMP has altered the appropriate land use arrangement
provided for within the subject site and will be a focus upon the upcoming restudy of the IAMP.
As indicated within the below CCPC recommendation section, the CCPC did interpret the IAMP
to be consistent with the proposed uses contained in the PUD and ultimately, the BCC if in
agreement with the CCPC would provide for the final interpretation of the IAMP and the
direction provided for within the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC heard petition PUDZ-PL20150000660, Westclox 29 Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) on January 7, 2016. While staff was constrained from making a
recommendation of approval due to the inconsistency with the GMP, the CCPC found the
Packet Page -14-
2/23/2016 9.A.
petition to be consistent with GMP and by a vote of 5 to 0 recommended to forward this petition
to the Board with a recommendation of approval. There have been no letters of objection
received.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Collier County Planning Commission has determined that
the requested rezone is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The
Comprehensive Planning staff found that the proposed rezone is inconsistent with the Immokalee
Area Master Plan. The final decision on consistency with the Growth Management Plan is one
for the Board of County Commissioners to make.
This is a site specific rezone for a project to be known as the Westclox CPUD. The burden falls
upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth
below. The burden then shifts to the Board, should it consider denying the rezone, to determine
that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be
accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below.
Criteria for PUD Amendment:
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 CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
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.
Packet Page -15-
2/23/2016 9.A.
8. Consider: Conformity with CPUD 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 CPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
11. Would the requested CPUD 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?
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.
Packet Page -16-
2/23/2016 9.A.
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 CPUD 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.lI], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the CPUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The Board 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
Board hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by
the County Attorney's Office. This item is approved for form and legality. An affirmative vote
of four is necessary for Board approval. (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board reviews the findings of the staff, information provided
by the applicant, and the findings of the CCPC and makes a final determination as to consistency
with the GMP. The zoning staff is constrained from recommending approval of the petition
based upon the interpretation of inconsistency with the GMP from Comprehensive Planning.
However, the CPUD document attached to the Ordinance, as recommended by the CCPC for
approval, has been determined to be consistent with the GMP by the CCPC. Should the Board
concur with the CCPC and find that the application is consistent with the GMP, the zoning staff
recommends approval of the PUD as amended with the CCPC recommendations.
Prepared by: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Zoning Services Division, Growth Management
Department
Attachments:
1) Staff Report
2) Proposed PUD Ordinance
3) Location Map
4) Master Plan
5) NIM Transcript
6) Application—go to:
http://apps3.colliergov.net/agenda/ftp/2016BCCMectings/AgendaFcb2316/GrowthMgmt/A.pplic
ation-PUDZ-PL20150000660-Westclox 29 CPUD.pdf
7) Legal Advertisement
Packet Page -17-
2/23/2016 9.A.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.9.A.
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 consider an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,the
Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning
regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real
property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO)to a
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district to allow up to 100,000 square
feet of commercial uses for a project to be known as Westclox 29 CPUD on property located at
the southwest quadrant of SR-29 and Westclox Street in Section 29,Township 46 South, Range
29 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 9.5± acres; and by providing an effective date
(P U DZ-P L20150000660).
Meeting Date: 2/23/2016
Prepared By
Name: GundlachNancy
Title:Planner,Principal,Zoning
1/15/2016 1:50:55 PM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst,Operations&Regulatory Management
Date: 1/15/2016 3:45:41 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Operations&Regulatory Management
Date: 1/15/2016 3:46:39 PM
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager-Planning,Zoning
Date: 1/15/2016 4:58:45 PM
Name: BosiMichael
Packet Page -18-
2/23/2016 9.A.
Title:Division Director-Planning and Zoning,Zoning
Date: 1/20/2016 8:08:25 AM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Administration
Date: 1/20/2016 1:02:15 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Administration
Date: 1/20/2016 1:04:25 PM
Name:AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 1/26/2016 2:29:24 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Administration
Date:2/2/2016 10:37:08 AM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Division Director-Corp Fin&Mgmt Svc, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 2/4/2016 2:08:13 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 2/12/2016 3:16:13 PM
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title:Deputy County Manager,County Managers Office
Date: 2/14/2016 1:19:39 PM
Packet Page -19-
2/23/2016 9.A.
AGENDA ITEM 9=C
Co C'.Y County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING SERVICES DIVISION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 7,2016
SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20150000660: WESTCLOX 29 CPUD (COMMERCIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
PROPERTY OWNER&APPLICANT/AGENT:
Property Owner&Applicant: Agents:
Barron Collier Partnership,LLLP D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich,Esq.
do David Genson Q. Grady Minor& Assoc. P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich, &Koester,P.A.
2600 Golden Gate Pkwy, #200 3800 Via Del Rey Northern Trust Bank Bldg
Naples, FL 34105 Bonita Springs,FL 34134 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an
application for a rezone from the Agricultural(A)zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay(A-
MHO)to a Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD)zoning district to allow up to 100,000
square feet of commercial uses for a project to be known as Westclox 29 CPUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property, consisting of 9.5± acres, is located at the southwest quadrant of State Road
29 and Westclox Street in Section 29,Township 46 South,Range 29 East,Collier County,Florida.
(See location map on the following page.)
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 1 of 20
December 18, 2015
Packet Page -20-
*111' **"4:4
2/23/2016 9.A.
o • , ∎4 4
v 4* 4110,71:46- 1
e���t0�/ ,eVooi "w cl It,
Lam. - 2 H (a RAN uS) 'OM 1971U6 NIM UI i
6Z OYUB 3LY1S U/ `.
., k g C ,
U
Z
B
Z
0
aiw
.0.q c
a I p.\ i, \ 7Li
c°v
a
a
TWOS 01 ION Q
D
CL
It
o
II-
I? d N
yq. F-
w
ce CL
ci
to
o w 0 ttj
1111110 O to N
R tit f
p0 N
vl
0
IrMill ." 2
FT,Ilin N ro
m
III U
0
N M N
ti
11 ,..., M W O M
.�-. 1V N ,�-. N
La 0
4 L.
Packet Page 21
1 7
Nd BZ£S aoZ/C/Ct 0Ma'(CA3M)dW -0 118IHX3,50NIMYtl O\and]6Z X013133M-a{ld7 6ZM\aNINN`nd
2/23/2016 J.A.
°op /n LL . t.•
N Z U1 W 3 O Ili
:NCI: Y °a -7-, > n�� y�
eL
P.
t 1n co
Q a Q a U
U <t UQ a ¢ Q �
QCO Z +n a 0. `N°xa
H Z Q
CO Z O W ED W W N
EC s a
C3 --I UU U¢�
Z Q a �C�
L�IJ J 0WQJ a ii ii -1071-
Lb on CI 111 ii)
2 ❑ d 0d <CQ Q w co co, —>IL
O W OOU W 2 fVN LL
❑ � WZC!! < t 0
W z C) Zw0 < D �a> re5 > g a o
D a ❑ aU ❑ ¢ x2_ ZCIO w0 o ( cc c,
W W O ¢ aCea cow a__ rn 0 0
ZO = U H o —a m
N-._ _- - - — — — — - — 0 X 4
W D O
— W
S.R. 29 �'
o �
__--------- U
co r ( ,
O bW.w * o
-J w¢u w a cx Em E
°w I--
"Li- Z D a en s 6
O CO oz w QQU Z Cl- is s ,,
a Ng C') I ►-Ew o o - 21 e
ceH WuCDZ 1- Li- �&
n z I-w0 U 0 -▪ ' w
oa J D I awa _ .
W
1 f W z n w u t
o
❑ u❑.I u)Q ! a a ce �I o H . Z LL W m w ' I Q W co ! cn I Z o‘r. O Z I U. U u' 0 b i
W d ❑ a,u) > J I � � m 0 ▪ as -
CO ZW I Z W m b 0 5 J 'CI a
Ng ❑
E I— / a L� N ❑ n O ��az r g z• 03 0- w��� c0i uW w moo¢ ri u m
CL En COW I- m U-
<0 ujZW0
ryd0Z ¢a ZWw~O
Z(nU o -74----1 -I a-�U
"116. W X w Z =❑OA
7 I-aQ o I W Ia Vm
W a Q 0 CO
/1-
H ---
H aowo Q • wo�
fl QU°
w
t-Uacd�a0Zn a w
iwz zw I,-O
v a C3dO A CJN1 Sfl 5 r >o
/ ��� OHlN�/ 03NOZ 1nw<cetw.�
/ w
In II--¢<< <
Ili
/ Packet Page -22- z N <6
2/23/2016 9.A.
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is requesting a 9.51 acre rezone from the Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a
Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO)to the Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD) Zoning
District. This CPUD rezoning petition is proposing up to 100,000 square feet of commercial as
development of uses allowed in the C-1 (Commercial Professional and General Office District),
C-2 (Commercial Convenience District), C-3 (Commercial Intermediate District) and C-4
(General Commercial) zoning districts. The Traffic Impact Statement analyzed a shopping center
for transportation impacts.
The Master Plan depicts one access point onto State Road (S.R.) 29 and two access points onto
Westclox Street, along with areas depicting a 50-foot building setback from a RSF-3 zoning
district, potential pedestrian interconnections, adjacent rights-of-way, and buffers. The majority
of the site is labeled as "Development Area,"and no building details are shown. The petitioner is
seeking approval of one deviation for this petition.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Westclox Street then undeveloped land with a zoning designation of SR 29 CPUD,
approved for 162,000 square feet of commercial uses on a 24.99+acre site.
East: S.R.29,then undeveloped land with a zoning designation of C-1-SR29COSD(Commercial
Professional and General Office District - State Road 29A Commercial Overlay
Subdistrict)
South: a single-family home with a zoning designation of RSF-3 (Residential Single-family)
West: undeveloped land with a zoning designation of A-MHO(Rural Agriculture with a Mobile
Home Overlay)
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 4 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -23-
2/23/2016 9.A.
,
ii ,
_ ' , iT �s
c I zi �i'l s' '''''..,,,:°.\\.,,;,.e.,Subject Site ��`%
, ,t1,.
iit , 0
1 , o
i , ...
, ,
. ' 4 l i'.,f U,_( ft R owr alRPrPo+�y Ufa, � sr:
AERIAL PHOTO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject site is approximately±9.5 acres and is identified
as Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict in the Immokalee
Area Master Plan(TAMP)Element of the Growth Management Plan. This CPUD rezoning petition
is proposing up to 100,000 square feet of commercial development of uses allowed in the C-1
(Commercial Professional and General Office District), C-2 (Commercial Convenience District),
and C-3 (Commercial Intermediate District) zoning districts as described in the Collier County
Land Development Code(LDC).
In evaluating this project for consistency, staff reviewed the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict(as
outlined in the Immokalee Area Master Plan) The entire text is shown on the next page followed
by [Staff comments in Bold].
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 5 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -24-
2/23/2016 9.A.
"4.Neighborhood Center Subdistrict
The purpose of this land use classification is to provide for centers of activity that serve the needs
of the surrounding neighborhoods. The centers should contain a mix of neighborhood oriented
uses such as day care center, parks, schools, and governmental activities. Other development
criteria that shall apply to all neighborhood centers includes the following:
a. To achieve a neighborhood character, these centers are encouraged to be anchored by
elementary schools,neighborhood scale parks,and/or churches. Not applicable for case by
case petition review.
b. A center should be limited to 80-120 acres in size, and will serve a population ranging
between 5,000 to 7,500 people,or accommodate a service area of one (1)mile radius. Not
applicable for case by case petition review.
c. The Neighborhood Centers should be no closer than one(1)mile. Not applicable for case
by case petition review.
d. Non-residential uses shall be at least 20% of the size of the Neighborhood Center." [This
subject site comprises the entirety of this Neighborhood Center. This petition is
requesting all non-residential uses.]
e. "Residential development within the designated Neighborhoods Centers shall permit a
maximum density of twelve (12) units per gross acre. Residential dwelling units shall be
limited to multi-family structures and less intensive units such as single-family and duplexes
provided they are compatible with the district. Mobile home developments shall be
permitted only in the form of mobile home subdivisions or parks as defined in the Land
Development Code." [Residential uses are not proposed.]
f. "Commercial development shall be permitted within a Neighborhood Center provided all
of the following criteria are met;"
1. "Commercial uses shall be limited to barber and beauty shops; drug stores; deli; meat
market; bicycle services; restaurant; dry cleaning; veterinary clinics; medical offices;
laundry facilities;any other convenience commercial uses which is compatible in nature
with the foregoing uses. The Collier County School Board will be notified of any
proposed use to avoid conflict with the nearby schools; and"[Allowable Neighborhood
Center Subdistrict uses are limited to those specifically listed above as well as those
in the C-2, commercial convenience zoning district. The basis for determining C-
2 uses in the Subdistrict is the term"convenience commercial uses" (similar to the
title of the C-2 district),the specifically listed uses are all allowed in the C-2 zoning
district in the zoning ordinance 82-2 which was in effect when the TAMP was
adopted in 1991, and the intended population and service area of a Neighborhood
Center. These are all C-1 or C-2 Zoning District uses either by right or by
conditional use. The C-3 uses that are proposed in the petitioner's `Exhibit A for
Westclox 29 CPUD' of the application are not consistent with the IAMP. Staff
recommends that C-3 uses be removed from Exhibit A or,in some instances where
listed in'C-2, add the omitted restrictions or limitations. Staff acknowledges the
potential for square footage limits to be removed from the LDC via an LDC
amendment;therefore,staff would not object to PUD language that allow the listed
C-2 uses up to the square footage limits allowed by the LDC for C-2 uses in effect
at time of SDP or SDPA approval.
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 6 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -25-
i6
2/23/2016 9.A.
fi
Uses in Exhibit A: "Permitted Uses—A" that need to be removed because the SIC
codes appear only starting in the C3 zoning district:
• #4 Animal Specialty services, except veterinary (0752, excluding outside
kenneling). SIC Code is listed as#4 in C-3
• #8 Auto and home supply stores (5531) SIC Code is listed as #8 in C-3 with
5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure.
• #48 Liquor stores (5921) SIC Code is listed as #80 in C-3 with 5,000 square
feet cap.
• #60 Physical fitness facilities(7911, 7991)—SIC Code 7991 is listed as#30 in
C-1 and #53 in C-2, but with conditions not listed here and SIC code 7911
is listed as#68 in C-3 with discotheques excluded.
• #61 Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451, 9511-
9532, 9611-9661) SIC Codes are listed as#71 in C-3.
• #69 Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (5261) SIC Code is listed
as#79 in C-3 with 5,000 square feet cap.
• #70 Retail services — miscellaneous (5921-5963 except pawnshops and
building materials, 5992-5999 except auction rooms, awning shops,
gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and
whirlpool baths). SIC Codes 5942-5961 are listed as #61 C-2 with 1,800
square feet cap; This entire PUD entry is listed as #80 in C-3 with 5,000
square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure.
2. "No commercial use shall be permitted within a Y4 mile of an existing school property
line within a Neighborhood Center; and" [There are no schools within this
Neighborhood Center Subdistrict.]
3. "Access to the commercial development must in no way conflict with the school traffic
in the area; and" [There are no schools within this Neighborhood Center
Subdistrict.]
4. "The design of any proposed commercial development must take into consideration the
safety of the school children; and" [There are no schools within this Neighborhood
Center Subdistrict. Also, according to the US Census Quick Facts, Immokalee's
(Census Designated Place)2010 population of children under the age of 18 is over
33%; therefore, a large number of school children could potentially live in the
surrounding neighborhoods and potentially be visiting this commercial site. Staff
encourages provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities along roads onsite and
abutting the site.]
5. "The projects within the Neighborhood Centers shall encourage provisions for shared
parking arrangements with adjoining developments;and" [The CPUD Master Plan did
not indicate any parking details, but this may be accomplished with an
interconnection to the west. A potential vehicular/pedestrian interconnect is shown
in the CPUD Master Plan(Exhibit C).]
6. "Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with adjoining developments;and" [The
CPUD Master Plan depicts one curb cut (access point) on SR 29, outside the 50'
setback and buffer area, and two on Westclox Street,both of which align with the
commercial PUD to the north. Staff does not believe it is feasible and/or possible
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 7 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -26-
2/23/2016 9.A.
to provide consolidated access points with existing or future adjoining
development.]
7. "Projects directly abutting residentially zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a
50 foot setback and landscape buffer; and" [The CPUD Master Plan shows a 50'
building setback with a 15'buffer where the subject site is adjacent to a residential
property. Also, a footnote on the Development Standards Table(Exhibit B) notes
that the 50' setback area is available for parking, essential services, water
management and non-vehicular connections.]
8. "Projects shall provide a 10 foot wide landscaped strip between the abutting right-of-
way
and the off-street parking area." [The CPUD Master Plan does not show any
parking details, but shows 20' Type `D' landscape buffers along Westclox Street
and SR 29,which is consistent with the IAMP.]
"From time to time new Neighborhood Centers may be proposed. No two centers may be closer
than one mile from each other.New Neighborhood Centers would require market justification and
must meet size, spacing and use criteria expressed earlier."
Staff has determined that a few of the proposed uses of Westclox 29 CPUD are not consistent
with the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. The proposed C-3 zoning district uses for up to
the 100,000 square feet of commercial development does not promote the intent of a
Neighborhood Center that serves the surrounding neighborhoods with commercial
convenience uses (C-1 and C-2 zoning districts).
Staff acknowledges the applicant's 3" re-submittal cover letter dated October 28, 2015 in
response to Comprehensive Planning's comments on the rd re-submittal that"they agree to
disagree" with staff's assessment of the inconsistent uses listed above (#1) and that the
applicant wishes to go forward to the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of
County Commissioners. Staff also acknowledges that in the future there may be
modifications to square footage restrictions in some of the commercial uses in C-1 through
C-5 zoning in the Land Development Code, but the draft modifications are not approved at
this time.
In reviewing for compliance with Policy 5.4 (shown in italics) of the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) for the purpose of promoting sound planning,protecting environmentally sensitive lands
and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensuring compatibility of
land uses staff provides the following analysis in bold text.
FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the
surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted
June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Although Comprehensive
Planning staff generally leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of a
petition, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses on the
subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal
and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities, development standards
(building setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 8 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -27-
2/23/2016 9.A.
generation/attraction, as well as the information provided in the Neighborhood Center
Subdistrict section of this review.]
In reviewing for compliance with Objective 7 and related Policies(shown in italics) of the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) regarding Smart Growth principles (interconnections, loop road,
sidewalks/trails,etc.), staff provides the following analysis in bold text.
FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their
properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made
without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit C,
CPUD Master Plan, depicts access onto SR 29—a principal arterial(urban and rural) road
as identified in the Transportation Element. According to Collier County Transportation
Planning comments, the petitioner will need to obtain Florida Department of
Transportation's approval for the access point on SR 29. The Master Plan also depicts two
access points on Westclox Street, an urban major collector road as identified in the
Transportation Element.]
FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help
reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic
signals. [No loop road is depicted on the CPUD Master Plan. Exhibit C in the CPUD Master
Plan identifies that the project will have a primary access on S.R. 29 and two additional
access points on Westclox Road. Additionally, the project will have internal access via
parking lot/drive aisles that will permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site.]
FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local
streets and/or their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also
addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The applicant modified Exhibit C,
CPUD Master Plan, in response to staff comments on the original application submitted in
June 2015. Exhibit C now shows a potential future vehicular/pedestrian interconnection on
the western property boundary abutting the tract currently zoned Rural Agricultural (with
Mobile Home Overlay). Staff stated in the June 2015 comments that because of the relatively
small number of potential future dwelling units in the tract zoned Residential (RSF-3) that
abuts the southern boundary of the CPUD making a future vehicular interconnection would
not be considered feasible. Therefore, staff recommended a future pathway connection
between the CPUD and the abutting southern residential tract to allow for pedestrian and
bicycle use. The CPUD Master Plan now shows a potential future pathway connection with
the RSF-3 tract.
FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable
communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing
prices and types. [Open space will be provided as required by the LDC. One of the permitted
C-2 zoning district uses is "civic, social, and fraternal associations (8641)" and therefore
could accommodate civic facilities. Staff believes that it is important to recognize the
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 9 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -28-
iy
2/23/2016 9.A.
significant pedestrian and bicycle population in Immokalee and to keep this in mind while
developing the site development plans for this project.]
Review of PUDZ Application dated 9-4-15(this has not been updated with a newer submittal)
It is suggested that Exhibit 3 (Evaluation Criteria— "Narrative Statement Describing Request"),
the last sentence, be modified as follows, "The CPUD will include uses generally consistent with
the C 3 C-2 zoning district with a maximum of 100,000 square feet of building area."
Review of CPUD Document and Master Plan
• Exhibit A: Remove the remaining C-3 Zoning District Uses in Exhibit A or add
the missing restrictions and limitations, as applicable.
It is suggested that Exhibit 3 (Evaluation Criteria—"Narrative Statement Describing Request"),
the last sentence, be modified as follows, "The CPUD will include uses generally consistent with
the C 3 CC2 zoning district with a maximum of 100,000 square feet of building area."
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project,staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact
Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan(GMP)using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports(AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states,
"The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that
is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway
segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to
operate below an adopted Level of Service [LOS] Standard within the five year AUIR
planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or
application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the
following occur:
a. For links(roadway segments)directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal
to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to
or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where
it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant
impacts on all roadways."
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 10 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -29-
2/23/2016 9.A.
The proposed rezoning to allow a shopping center on the subject property will generate
approximately 449 PM peak hour,net new trips on the adjacent roadway links,as follows: S.R.29
from 9th Street to C.R. 29A North, a two-lane undivided facility,with a current service volume of
900 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 352 trips, and currently operating at LOS "C"
in the 2014 AUIR; S.R. 29 from CR 29A North to S.R. 82, a two-lane undivided facility, with a
current service volume of 900 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 380 trips, and
currently operating at LOS "C" in the 2014 AUIR; Westclox Road from Carson Road to S.R. 29,
a two-lane undivided facility, with a current service volume of 800 trips and a remaining capacity
of approximately 590 trips, and currently operating at LOS `B" in the 2014 AUIR; and, New
Market Road from Broward Street to S.R. 29,a two-lane undivided facility, with a current service
volume of 900 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 418 trips, and currently operating
at LOS "C" in the 2014 AUIR. Based on the 2014 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has
sufficient capacity to accommodate the project within the 5-year planning period. Staff also
reviewed the project using the 2015 AUIR and also determined there is adequate capacity on the
road network to accommodate the project within the 5-year period. Therefore,the subject rezoning
can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management
Plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff
found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. A
minimum of 1.2 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD,the entirety of
which will be satisfied off site in accordance with the LDC.
GMP Conclusion: This rezone petition may not be deemed consistent with the Immokalee
Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code
(LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to
as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning
Commission Report(referred to as "Rezone Findings"),which establish the legal bases to support
the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to
support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these
subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff
offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require Environmental
Advisory Council (EAC)review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development
project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and
Ordinances.
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 11 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -30-
2/23/2016 9.A.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and
recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD
ordinance.
Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and
complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested
uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject
proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and
densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building
mass, building location and orientation,architectural features,amount and type of open space and
location.
Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the
surrounding land uses to the north east and west. As previously stated,to the north is undeveloped
commercial property across Westclox Street. Similarly the land directly across State Route 29 to
the east is undeveloped along the road frontage. Directly to the west is undeveloped property
with a zoning designation of Agricultural with a Mobile Home Overlay. However,to the south is
a developed residential single-family property. To mitigate for this, the agent is required to and
has provided a 50-foot building setback. Within the 50-foot setback is a 15-foot wide Type B
landscape buffer.
Staff offers the following analysis of this project.
The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document show the following:
STANDARDS `-^" COMMERCIAL
�j A14 a:
,.- - rF :� _..z4 '�' � _ G 3`k'.
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet
Minimum Lot Depth N/A
Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Southern PUD Boundary Setback 50 feet
Maximum Height
Zoned 35 feet
Actual 50 feet
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 12 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -31-
it
2/23/2016 9.A.
Minimum Distance Between Structures One-half the sum of each building height but
not less than twenty feet (20 feet)
Minimum Floor Area 1000 SF
m, ,,gg a -' " .M 3°!''' y,.+.1 -3y G r ''� ' r ,:; i S'11-.#74:64: t y;
`� ' (r k i(',
A2 ,«4ne4* .z,-�'s .,:,..,_L i,.,.Jr!„:...�,. ,....,.,. ..:. ._d>a.=,k vrr...,h 244EVAAW**At:�.:.r::,..., l:
Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 15 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Southern PUD Boundary Setback2 50 feet
Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet
Maximum Height
Zoned 20 feet
Actual 25 feet
1 Except project signage which shall be in compliance with signage provisions of the LDC.
2 2 Parking,essential services,water management and non-vehicular pathways shall be permitted within the 50-
foot setback.
Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking approval of one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The
deviation is listed in the PUD document in Exhibit E. 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:
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. . . .
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.08.E.1.B.ii (b), Site Design Standards, which
requires for corner lots,no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial
building or project shall be located between any primary façade of the commercial building or
project and the abutting street,with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the required
parking, to permit 100% of the required parking to be permitted between the primary façade and
the road frontage.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states the following in their justification for this deviation:
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 13 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -32-
2/23/2016 9.A.
The deviation is justified due to the narrow configuration of the subject parcel, it
may not be possible to orient vehicular parking areas without a majority of the
parking lot located between a primary façade and the road frontage. Other nearby
properties are developed with parking areas located between the primary façade
and road frontage. Landscape buffers will be provided between parking areas and
the roadway.
Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC
Section 10.02.13.A.3,the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a
detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
FINDINGS OF FACT:
LDC Subsection 10.03.08.F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires
the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the
additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold,
non-italicized font]:
PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.115 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.
The nearby area is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be
required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other
utilities. In addition, the commitments included in PUD Exhibit F adequately address the
impacts from the proposed development.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of
such areas and,facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office,demonstrate unified control of the property.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 14 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -33-
2/23/2016 9.A.
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on staff
analyses,staff is of the opinion that this petition may not be found consistent with the Growth
Management Plan. However, if the staff's condition of approval is adopted, then the
proposed Planned Unit Development could be found to be consistent with the 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.
As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the
proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the
LDC.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the
Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time
of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to
demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. The applicant has committed to
pay their proportionate share of intersection improvements to S.R. 29/Westclox Road/New
Market Road, including signalization.If FDOT does not approve the proposed access point
on S.R.29,then the project impacts to the intersection will be greater. Finally,the project's
development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations
when development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and
potable water supplies to accommodate this project. Furthermore, adequate public facilities
requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The petitioner is seeking one deviation to allow design flexibility in compliance with the
purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This
criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations
proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 15 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -34-
2/23/2016 9.A.
most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes Deviation #1 can be supported,
finding that,in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3,the petitioner has demonstrated
that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and
welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated
that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to
Iiteral application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of
the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviation.
Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land,
the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County
Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed
change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are
provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Staff has found that the proposed change is not consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. As
previously stated, this rezone petition may not be deemed consistent with the Immokalee
Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan. However, if the staff
recommended conditions of approval are adopted,then the proposed change could be found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning"
portion of this report and discussed it in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the
proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the abutting
lands across Westclox Street are also zoned CPUD.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change.
The proposed district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Item 3 above.
S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed rezone is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the
LDC provisions to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than
what the existing zoning district would allow.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 16 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -35-
2/23/2016 9.A.
neighborhood;
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions
in the area because some of the adjacent lands are vacant and commercially zoned. Where
the adjacent use is residential,a building setback of 50 feet and a Type B Landscape Buffer
has been provided.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes
or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of
the CPUD ordinance,which includes provisions to address public safety.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC
specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the
risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific
regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the
applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This
project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances
between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to
adjacent areas.
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 a host of factors including
zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is
driven by market value.There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner
comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Lands to the north, east and west (across S.R. 29 and Westclox Road) are mostly
undeveloped. The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of
adjacent properties.
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 17 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -36-
2/23/2016 9.A.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
If the Staff condition of approval is followed, then the proposed development will comply
with the Growth Management Plan(GMP). The GMP constitutes a public policy statement
supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light
of this fact,the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency
with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions
consistent with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
The subject property can be developed within existing zoning.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
As noted previously,the proposed C-3 land uses are not consistent with the prescribed land
uses contained within the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of the Immokalee Area Master
Plan(TAMP). Therefore,the proposed change is not 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 proposed C-3 land uses are 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 may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however,
this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision.
The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and
staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site
alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal,state, and
local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process
and again later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and
as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 18 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -37-
2/23/2016 9.A.
amended.
The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding
Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and
objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed
by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the
rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate
commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized.
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.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM):
The agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on Monday,August 3,2015. Please see attached"Transcript
of the Neighborhood Information Meeting."
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on December 16, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning and Zoning Services staff is constrained from recommending approval as the proposed
petition is not consistent with the GMP. However,staff could recommend that the Collier County
Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20150000660,Westclox 29 CPUD to the Board
of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulation:
1. Exhibit A: Remove the remaining C-3 Zoning District Uses in Exhibit A or add the missing
restrictions and limitations, as applicable.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance
Attachment B: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 19 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -38-
2/23/2016 9.A.
PREPARED BY: ANA4 4e./N
NANCY 16. CH,AICP,PLA DAT' tS
PRINCIP P ,NNER
ZONING DIVISION
REVIEWED BY:?I: -7-
RAYMON V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE
ZONING DIVISION
tz -q- f Sc-
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
ZONING DIVISION
APPROVED BY:
,01111,- r..+r a" /.2-17- / 6—
A MES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Or
DAVID S. WI' LKISON,P.E. DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Tentatively scheduled for the March 8, 2016 Board of County Commissioners Meeting.
PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 20 of 20
December 18,2015
Packet Page -39-
2/23/2016 9.A.
ORDINANCE NO. 16-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY
AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL (A)
ZONING DISTRICT WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY(A-MHO)TO
A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING
DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL USES FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
WESTCLOX 29 CPUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF SR-29 AND WESTCLOX STREET IN
SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 9.5± ACRES; AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ-PL20150000660)
WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Barron Collier
Partnership, LLLP, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning
classification of the herein described property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification.
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 29,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from an Agriculture (A)
zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) for a 9.5± acre parcel to be known as Westclox 29 CPUD in accordance
with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
[15-CPS-01445/1233710/1]78 Page 1 of2
Westclox CPUD-PUDZ-PL20150000660
1/15/16
Packet Page -40-
2/23/2016 9.A.
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.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: By:
Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairwoman
Approved as to form and legality:
o
Heidi Ashton-Cicko k"
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses
Exhibit B—Development Standards
Exhibit C—Master Plan
Exhibit D—Legal Description
Exhibit E—Deviations
Exhibit F—List of Developer Commitments
[15-CPS-01445/1233710/1]78 Page 2 oft
Westclox CPUD-PUDZ-PL20150000660
1/15/16
Packet Page -41-
2/23/2016 9.A.
EXHIBIT A
FOR
WESTCLOX 29 CPUD
Regulations for development of the WESTCLOX 29 CPUD shall be in accordance with the
contents of this CPUD Document and applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC)
and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of each development
order to which said regulations relate. Where this CPUD Ordinance does not provide
development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are
otherwise applicable shall apply.
PERMITTED USES:
A maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted within the CPUD. 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:
1. Accounting(8721).
2. Adjustment and collection services(7322).
3. Advertising agencies(7311).
4. Animal specialty services, except veterinary (0752, excluding outside
kenneling).
5. Apparel and accessory stores (5611-5699).
6. Architectural services (8712).
7. Auditing (8721).
8. Auto and home supply stores(5531).
9. Automobile Parking, automobile parking garages and parking structures (7521
- shall not be construed to permit the activity of"tow-in parking lots").
10. Banks,credit unions and trusts(6011-6099).
11. Barber shops(7241, except for barber schools).
12. Beauty shops (7231, except for beauty schools).
13. Bookkeeping services (8721).
14. Business consulting services (8748).
15. Business credit institutions(6153-6159).
16. Child day care services (8351).
17. Churches.
18. Civic, social and fraternal associations(8641).
19. Commercial art and graphic design (7336).
Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 1 of 10 01/0712016
Packet Page -42-
2/23/2016 9.A.
20. Commercial photography(7335).
21. Computer and computer software stores (5734) with 5,000 square feet or less
of gross floor area in the principal structure.
22. Computer programming, data processing and other services(7371-7379).
23. Credit reporting services (7323).
24. Direct mail advertising services(7331).
25. Drug stores(5912).
26. Eating places(5812).
27. Educational plants.
28. Engineering services (8711).
29. Essential services,subject to section 2.01.03
30. Food stores(groups 5411-5499).
31. Funeral services (7261, except crematories).
32. Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212).
33. Gasoline service stations (5541, subject to section 5.05.05).
34. General merchandise stores(5331-5399).
35. Glass stores(5231).
36. Group care facilities (category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care
units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities
pursuant to F.S. §400.402 and ch. 58A-5 F.A.C.; and continuing care retirement
communities pursuant to F.S. § 651 and ch. 4-193 F.A.C.; all subject to section
5.05.04
37. Hardware stores (5251).
38. Health services, offices and clinics(8011-8049).
39. Home furniture and furnishings stores(5712-5719).
40. Home health care services (8082).
41. Household appliance stores (5722).
42. Insurance carriers, agents and brokers(6311-6399, 6411).
43. Labor unions (8631).
44. Landscape architects, consulting and planning(0781).
45. Laundries and drycleaning, coin operated -self-service (7215).
46. Legal services (8111).
47. Libraries (8231).
48. Liquor stores(5921)
49. Loan brokers(6163).
50. Management services (8741 &8742).
Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 2 of 10 01/07/2016
Packet Page -43-
2/23/2016 9.A.
51. Membership organizations, miscellaneous(8699).
52. Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents(6162).
53. Musical instrument stores (5736).
54. Paint stores(5231).
55. Personal credit institutions (6141).
56. Personal services, miscellaneous (7299 - babysitting bureaus, clothing rental,
costume rental, dating service, debt counseling, depilatory salons, diet
workshops, dress suit rental, electrolysis, genealogical investigation service,
and hair removal only).
57. Photocopying and duplicating services (7334).
58. Photofinishing laboratories (7384).
59. Photographic studios, portrait(7221).
60. Physical fitness facilities(7991; 7911, except discotheques).
61. 71. Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451,
9511-9532, 9611-9661).
62. Public relations services (8743).
63. Radio,television and consumer electronics stores(5731).
64. Radio,television and publishers advertising representatives(7313).
65. Real Estate (6531-6552).
66. Record and prerecorded tape stores (5735), excluding adult oriented sales and
rental.
67. Religious organizations(8661).
68. Repair services - miscellaneous (7629-7631, 7699 - bicycle repair, binocular
repair, camera repair, key duplicating, lawnmower repair, leather goods repair,
locksmith shop, picture framing,and pocketbook repair only).
69. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (5261).
70. Retail services - miscellaneous (5921-5963 except pawnshops and building
materials, 5992-5999 except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot
tubs, monuments, swimming pools,tombstones and whirlpool baths).
71.Secretarial and court reporting services(7338).
72. Security and commodity brokers, dealer, exchanges and services (6211-6289).
73. Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors(7251).
74. Social services, individual and family (8322 activity centers, elderly or
handicapped only; day care centers,adult and handicapped only).
75. Surveying services (8713).
76.Tax return preparation services (7291).
77.Travel agencies(4724, no other transportation services).
78. United States Postal Service (4311,except major distribution center).
Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 3 of 10 01/07/2016
Packet Page -44-
2/23/2016 9.A.
79.Veterinary services(0742, excluding outdoor kenneling).
80.Videotape rental (7841), excluding adult oriented sales and rental.
81. Wallpaper stores (5231).
82.Any other commercial use or professional services, which are comparable in
nature with the foregoing uses including those that exclusively serve the
administrative as opposed to the operational functions of a business and are
associated purely with activities conducted in an office.
83.Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in
nature with the foregoing uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals
("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner.
B. Accessory Uses/Structures:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal
uses and structures,including, but not limited to:
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted
principal uses.
2. Drinking places (Group 5813), only in conjunction with eating places.
3. Caretaker's residence.
4. Sidewalk sales: outdoor seasonal sales shall be permitted(except roadside
sales).
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Exhibits B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the CPUD. Standards not
specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as
of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth in Exhibit B, shall be understood to be in
relation to individual parcels or lot boundary lines.
Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 4 of 10 01/07/2016
Packet Page-45-
2/23/2016 9.A.
EXHIBIT B
FOR
WESTCLOX 29 CPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STANDARDS COMMERCIAL
.i i75� w o ! ,„ -y4'4, r
r� . y a � _+� uy� �' � }; a - �r�} '`� � �Y µ �s� r T`
w`' w l r k r {; �J„r 7` (�, r4,ys Y tt:t'4, n 51„1,i.r 11;,,t `r,.a k. ;„ - G 1
� � �� � p.
4 ,,T,. a, r_„k. itt, ,,�?��a�'�w��� ".d�n�•.`` �n� "T:,:_ , �ii�,�
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet
Minimum Lot Depth N/A
Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Southern PUD Boundary Setback 50 feet
Maximum Height
Zoned 35 feet
Actual 50 feet
Minimum Distance Between Structures One-half the sum of each building height but not less
than twenty feet (20 feet)
Minimum Floor Area 1000 SF
g t "mJ�474-1y.',15776, "t ° '�° � �^°Y=n A" n� ,�, 1 iT $-fC'1,-�+a,ia "�r4
L. i '' n r a tl a u s a �;t .u,s o ; i4,a r ,:0, M f IM tl a u b
; :., M ,. w x ' ,, ' } �� ,y,4 'er pd„ 4 t .N +� '�v 1 l
h.� i r x���.,^r 9 €.�. 'a�' �a a � �.5. �^f v �
a +* ,� `r;,. ': "
Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 15 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Southern PUD Boundary Setback2 50 feet
Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet
Maximum Height
Zoned 20 feet
Actual 25 feet
1 Except project signage which shall be in compliance with signage provisions of the LDC.
2 Parking, essential services, water management and non-vehicular pathways shall be
permitted within the 50-foot setback.
Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 5 of 10 01/07/2016
Packet Page -46-
2/23/2016 9.A.
Wei BCC SIOZ/C/Zl 5M0'(V )al- 01f61HX3\SONIMVZfC\00d0 6Z X010153M-00d0 6ZM\ONINNV1d-rOad\ONI I,1• U 1 01'W A
I Z �O w ct
0 0
0 LL
ce
d Z-t d o X Z N co
0 cZ
Z fn to N X"-
I- O of ao Z¢
Z O W W W I N■
(7) CO [j Z ¢ ¢¢ ¢ ww
W _J O W Q J 0 ii t+ ii U H
Z < O a < < W �� ,- >�
Q H w NO � V cc rL NN tL
Z
Q (7 — W O ¢ w O O w w q a fn
i >_cc a
W ICI Z UZ W O < m m» as > 0., 0
O Ona' U W Q ��c Zw Ww O� C1 W
W I- 0 ¢ d tY cL a rn v v~) o
uJ u 0 ON m •
N n k = J .N
E. a vi
S.R. 29 w '
C.)
U
_
— — _____I�
ic-7) ti 1--- ( 1
0 b LLl IY it I o 1-
-1 aW W I- <�,_ 9 g
V a}vLL W ° x
I-am z a O q
O W R bz W Q< ° z a z`-. os N
0 k Ng C/) I II za W 0 a
d? I 1-W O ¢ Q s}e ��' r
U ' d
jd f I I awet 4_ W
a V) Q a
0)w I I W a Z 2 W i
0 W a II a Q I I I 0 I- i `c
0
I— U Z ¢ . 1%
a. 0 alit I tu. w ¢ I -� ZO
� a L�
rn• W m w 1— ¢ v
> a v) z
o I ccU N p z 0 w C
e Z w U LLJ - cc — w a
O Q D a( > W O m 3 i Li¢� / 2 o m as N 0 J .c CZ E 0 0 d Ng c°o I ZW U > c T
Ox •F_. f/ LJ 0 N0 co
o w O C� g 4
Z � d or a a - g Z w d p D W I W D U Q 2
0 W P = I I I cc a O 1- S
X 0 w 1011 W F Z Q i C3
o)w cn¢ 1cz ¢a II ZWIw- x0
¢� Z wv Zw2 >1--
"- 1 1-aW I w
° I 1-wa. zm
o0_ aW.? w � �aoai
Im ZZWQ� Ll
� �� i m ¢ OU I_¢U N W
r.� w0 g(n ¢ cc w
(i)
9. C7WZtn a
• g i a3dOlAn0dNfl 3Sf g >raw°
/ IV CC OHW`d a3NOZ mzaaw
Z w .±-a ¢- a¢
w
/ 0 . N M
Z
Packet Page-47-
2/23/2016 9.A.
EXHIBIT D
FOR
WESTCLOX 29 CPUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK
2493, PAGE 2779, LYING IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 29 AS SHOWN ON THE WESTCLOX
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 69022;THENCE RUN SOUTH
89°15'42" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE, SOUTH 89°15'42" WEST, A DISTANCE
OF 1001.87 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 00°38'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
556.47' TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX STREET, AS SHOWN
ON THE WESTCLOX STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 69022;
THENCE SOUTH 70°13'29" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX
STREET, A DISTANCE OF 261.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 648.65 FEET, ALONG THE ARC
OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1812.95 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF
20°29'59", (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 80°28'28" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 645.20 FEET)TO A POINT;
THENCE NORTH 89°16'31" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 121.98 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE
SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX STREET AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
NORTH 15TH STREET (STATE ROAD 29), THENCE RUN ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
SOUTH 00°38'24" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 349.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 9.50 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 7 of 10 01/07/2016
Packet Page -48-
2/23/2016 9.A.
EXHIBIT E
FOR
WESTCLOX 29 CPUD
DEVIATIONS
1. From LDC Section 5.05.08.E.1.b.ii (b),Site Design Standards, which requires for corner lots,
no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial building or
project shall be located between any primary facade of the commercial building or project
and the abutting street, with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the
required parking, to permit 100% of the required parking to be permitted between the
primary facade and the road frontage.
Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 8 of 10 01/07/2016
Packet Page -49-
2/23/2016 9.A.
EXHIBIT F
FOR
WESTCLOX 29 CPUD
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
1. TRANSPORTATION
a. The owner or its successors or assigns, shall pay its proportionate share towards the
costs of the traffic signal and other pedestrian features, including but not limited to
sidewalks, cross walks, pedestrian signals and improvements for handicapped
accessibility, to be constructed at the intersection of SR29 and Westclox/New
Market Roads at the time the signal is installed.
b. The owner or its successors or assigns, at time of project construction, shall
construct all pedestrian facilities on the south and west sides of the intersection of
SR29 and Westclox/New Market Roads that accommodate pedestrian generated
trips associated with the project (excluding Pedestrian Signalized System), if such
facilities do not exist at time of SDP.
c. The owner at any time upon written request of FDOT shall provide up to 10' (ten)
feet of additional road right-of-way along the SR-29 frontage. The additional road
right-of-way shall be conveyed at no cost to the State or Collier County. Building
setbacks and landscape buffers along S.R. 29 shall be reduced by the width of the
right-of-way conveyed to the County or State per LDC Section 9.03.07 effective at
time of approval of this PUD. This requirement terminates upon completion of
FDOT's 90% construction plans for State Road 29 improvements, which is currently
in the project development and environment(PD&E)study stage.
d. The project shall be limited to a maximum of 599 two-way unadjusted PM peak hour
trips.
e. The Traffic Impact Statement submitted for the SDP shall include trip distribution
assignments for each project entrance shown on the SDP.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL
No native vegetation preserve shall be provided on-site. The developer shall meet
native vegetation preservation requirements by providing for off-site vegetation
retention pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. The off-site vegetation retention shall
be a minimum of 1.2±acres (8.26±acres of native vegetation x 0.15 = 1.2±acres).
3. PUD MONITORING
One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring
until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD
commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the
Managing Entity is Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite
200, Naples, FL 34105. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring
Westelox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 9 of 10 01/07/2016
Packet Page -50-
2/23/2016 9.A.
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.
4. 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
Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 10 of 10 01/07/2016
Packet Page -51-
4\ >' tt 2/23/2016 9.A.
0 cz g — ici ,-; gsAlimrelfsv.s■ffei
AI
I , e �. �� �� 2_m
yetist* Ii itAo< J ii I
H M
(6Z 31Mx Ys) 'ox 133N15 N1N33111.1 CL
gi 6Z OV02f 31V1S
°S
is
CL
0
U 7
cZ Z
LL Z
9
, 1 0
°S Flq lal x�Nl AI CI AN
17w1G 4161l •N
u- E° 0
a a x
5 S e^ QOM CO
CO
Q w
E! §i y w 1n
tt� S 2t H O
C." N
i J
CL
33tlO5 01 ION Q
D
D-
U
Z
0
'y a M H-
- N co M N �9 - N H co
W
w a
U
O N N W N M M O N N
W
J
a
Y
O N
to <71 C A Z _
Q
W b
n a
2
6Z 'RS
O Cr, N N co O `
N N M N
0
F-
�N n co m O rn n — —
M
00 K 0
c4 WO
O O
AI
0
. 0 OJ J
m
NI-
M N N M M N
U
A .- a N N. ....]
W CC
CC
a N
Y W
Q
1—Packet Page -52-
/(� INd 9ZC StOZ/C/Zl OMO(CA3N)dlN -0 118IHX3\SONIMV2IO\Of1d0 6Z X0101S3M- Old0 6ZM\`ONINNV1d - 2/23/2016 9.A.
O N b 0 6 gg a O z w
II O LL O 0 Q .o g w 3 1 y x
-z� r"-- a O �� z w W- x U
J p W W
Q 04 CC
U Q CC Q o Q Q co
°(/) Z Q -H +I up 2 Nxct
I O cr; w Z Q
Cl) _1 co co co 0 .Fi
Z W WW W ~ N
C7 p
Cl) U O Z Q Q Q Q W W
W - O W Q J -H +I +i 0 F-
Z 0 Q 0 Cl. Q Q Q w co w > U
O W N O I- V N CV LL
_ ❑ W W Z w < 0 Ed 0 a a 0
Q o ,- W02 Q H 2 Qom ❑ > a ❑ - In
U co Q z OZQ0 Q Q X2 Z 0 0 w Cr 5 CC o
X W F- O Q- a � a CC a o O ro N-)
W ZO N U F- 2 O d nt o
N p — — m N
0 = -I
,---1 W D o
C) I- w in
S.R. 29 c W
ki
o �
U
CO i
X
O guar * I 0 a
CI_w F-
U acQiu 1-- w a `z =
w F— } cn 0 a_� °
0) co O Z m W Q Q U z a
0
a. Ng U I Z � Z 0 _ °
F-
aZ I F- W0 0 0 §'_
o a I i H I a ❑W � W _
p =-rn W
a(a `
L W z
p Q Q I ~
I-
0 W I Y O F- G
U Z Q �.
CL L -- W < I o
• O �' m w F- 0 Q •
N > w D U) co Z U s.-.
0 O Q 0 0 CO 0 U LL s
• Z w U W — w ❑ f"''". -
❑ Lip �a- 0 > I W m 0 �° K
w W / F-0 W 5 p w 0 2 ›,
U) ZW b a m W O • 'C
0 O U) N b I Z W cA F- Q
0� N D `I _ NN D ❑ w O C7 ==
a O / J iX < m _
CL tr]'
7 '
0 I w 0) 0Q
U� 2 a ❑ _i
0)W WF- m H () Z W �
CCU ZW W ZZWH.
U)Q _, <Z Q - I Z W F- I0
---∎ / i_0 a � zw �_ ~ F-
- zco 0 ❑ JcC xww
W Z i Q ❑ O w
og I O�
� � z WCCao ((n
W
CO
Z Z W O
/(4-___:--_-_-__ — ' — ' w Q O Q O N W
wv cnQ1: w
W
�U ,-. � Z ZaW QO
�, a a�do��A GNn �sn g } Ct > CO
i � OHW-` :a NOZ azQ0w
0 W 2 w . 0 0
z U H Q Q Q Q
W
/ 0 N M
Packet Page -53-
2/23/2016 9.A.
1
1
2
3 TRANSCRIPT OF THE
4 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
5 FOR WESTCLOX 29 CPUD
6 August 3, 2015
7
8 `I4
9
10
11 Appearances:
12 WAYNE ARNOLD
13 RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQ.
14 GARY WILLIAMS
15 JAMES BANKS •
16 NANCY GUNDLACH
17 SHARON UMPENHOUR
18
li
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Packet Page -54-it B
2/23/2016 9.A.
2
1 MR. ARNOLD: We're going to go ahead and get
2 started.
3 This is the neighborhood information meeting
4 for the Westclox State Road 29 commercial planned
5 unit development, and I'm Wayne Arnold with
6 GradyMinor & Associates, the planner handling the
7 application. This is Gary Williams who's walking
8 in the room.
9 With me tonight I have Rich Yovanovich. He's
10 the land use attorney working on the project. We
11 have Jim Banks sitting next to him over here that
12 did the traffic analysis.
13 And each of you probably received a letter
14 from Sharon, who's sitting here recording the
15 meeting. The county requires us to record
16 neighborhood information meetings and provide them
17 with a transcript of the meeting so they can
18 understand what public comments were made and what
19 representations we made to make sure that
20 everything gets addressed appropriately as we move
21 along through the process.
22 This -- the subject property I have on the
23 aerial photograph up here, it's of the southwest
24 corner of State Road 29 and Westclox. It's about
25 ten acres. Immediately across the street was the
Packet Page -55-
2/23/2016 9.A.
3
1 Walmart property, the State Road 29 commercial
2 planned development that you all followed very
3 closely.
4 This is a much more simple project. We don't
5 know the end user here and we've -- we're in a
6 neighborhood center under your Immokalee master
7 plan. So we've asked for a commercial rezoning to
8 establish uses that are generally neighborhood
9 oriented. Some of those we have, I think C3, there
10 may be a couple of C4-type uses, but primarily
11 they're Cl, 2 and 3 land uses that have been
12 proposed.
13 It's in for review right now with Collier
14 County. We've received one round of comments on
15 our zoning application. They've made comments. We
16 have not responded. We typically wait until after
17 we have the neighborhood information meeting to see
18 if any questions or issues come up that we need to
19 address through the process.
20 So what will happen next in the process is
21 Nancy Gundlach. I'm sorry. I didn't introduce
22 Nancy. Nancy Gundlach here on the corner is the
23 staff principal planner that's handling the project
24 management from the county's side for this. So if
25 anybody has any questions of Nancy, she's here to
Packet Page -56-
2/23/2016 9.A.
{
4
1 answer questions about process, procedure, things
2 of that nature, too, so.
3 So we have one formal round of comments from
4 the county. We're in preparation of our responses
5 back to the county. They raised some questions
6 with some of the uses, whether or not we were j
7 consistent with the language out of the
8 comprehensive plan about limited uses. We're in
9 the process of responding to those.
10 Sharon, do you want to move to the master plan
11 on that? It's the next slide.
12 It's -- on our master plan, we're showing two
13 access points on Westclox, approximately aligning
14 with those proposed for the State Road 29 planned
15 unit development across the street.
16 We're also depicting an access point on State
17 Road 29. The county transportation staff
18 questioned that access point and Jim Banks is
19 working with them to address whether or not we meet
20 the spacing criteria. So that is something that
21 may be changing.
22 They've asked us to provide a potential
23 vehicular interconnect to the west and they asked
24 us to provide a pedestrian interconnection to the
25 south. There's a single family home south of us.
Packet Page -57-
2/23/2016 9.A.
5
1 I'm not sure it makes sense for a vehicular
2 interconnect, but we are willing to provide a
3 pedestrian interconnect.
4 And, of course, as you all know, there's
5 already a sidewalk in the State Road 29
6 right-of-way and along Westclox in that area. So I
7 think there will be good pedestrian access for the
8 community here.
9 This process is probably going to take us
10 several more months. We'll be responding back to
11 the county, we hope, in the next couple of months.
12 And after that, you're going to see a big billboard
13 sign like there was for the proposed Walmart store
14 go up on the property that will announce the
15 Planning Commission and the Board of County
16 Commissioner hearing dates for the property.
17 And we'll continue to work with staff to iron
18 out any -- any issues that we have and we'll be
19 holding a Planning Commission hearing in that --
20 I'm guessing it will probably be in Naples. I
21 don't think this is going to have the attention
22 that it had for the State Road 29 PUS across the
23 street. So I'm guessing the Planning Commission
24 may just elect to hold the hearing in Naples as
25 they normally do. They did make an exception and
Packet Page -58-
2/23/2016 9.A.
6
1 held that meeting for the State Road 29 POD out
2 here.
3 But I think that after the neighborhood
4 information meeting in which we had hundreds of
5 people attend, we didn't have a whole lot of
6 attention for the balance of the project.
7 But in this particular case, we're asking for
8 up to 100,000 square feet of commercial on roughly
9 ten acres, and they're going to be of the
10 neighborhood-oriented uses that are allowed under
11 the Immokalee master plan. And, again, there's no
12 specific end user for the property. The Barron
13 Collier Companies, who own the property, are going
14 through the entitlement process because they
15 believe that there will be some attention for this
16 project, and rather than leave it agriculturally
17 zoned, they're going to bring it through the
18 process to establish a commercial planned
19 development for the property.
20 But if all goes well, I would assume that
21 we'll get to the Planning Commission meeting
22 probably late fall. When I say late fall, that's
23 probably going to be at least October at this
24 point, given that we're in August already. And
25 then the board would follow, hopefully, in November
Packet Page -59-
2/23/2016 9.A. u.
7
1 or December, but we hope to wrap up by the end of
2 the year.
3 Rich, have I left out anything? It's a pretty
4 straightforward application. There's not a lot of
5 this one. It's a pretty basic one as far as
6 commercial planning developments go.
7 Nancy, anything you think you want to add?
8 MS. GUNDLACH: I think you covered everything.
9 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I would point out just one
10 feature on the master plan, it's a little bit
11 unique, but it's in your neighborhood center.
12 Along the southern property boundary, since there's
13 residential zoning to the south, we have a 50-foot
14 building setback and landscape buffer area, which
15 we can't put building improvements and things of
16 that nature. So that's been reflected on the
17 master plan and I 'm sure there will be a landscape
18 condition or something that staff will impose on us
19 for that.
20 That's really it. I know a few of you came in
21 late, but happy to repeat anything that may have
22 been missed. If you have question or anybody else
23 that's heard the brief discussion, I'm happy to
24 answer questions.
25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: To clarify this,
Packet Page -60-
(
2/23/2016 9.A.
8
1 you're saying that on -- is that 29? There would
2 not be an entryway there?
3 MR. ARNOLD: We're showing right here a
4 proposed access point on the far southern end of
5 our property and your transportation staff at the
6 county has questioned whether or not we meet the
7 access spacing criteria from the intersection of
8 Westclox right here down to that access point.
9 So Jim Banks, our traffic engineer, is working
10 with staff to determine what class of road this is
11 and whether or not we'll be allowed to have access
12 point.
13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: How many feet is it?
14 MR. ARNOLD: Jim, do you remember what we
15 said? We had that number before.
16 MR. BANKS: I want to say it was 240, 250
17 feet.
18 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think its 300 feet, or
19 maybe a little less.
20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What do you mean
21 by access point? Is it a turning lane?
22 MR. ARNOLD: Well, it would be access for
23 vehicular traffic to (indiscernible) the site. It
24 would be a driveway connection (indiscernible) .
25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So you would enter
Packet Page -61-
2/23/2016 9.A.
9
1 at Westclox and 29?
2 MR. ARNOLD: We would. We would have access
3 here and over here on the western end of the
4 project, but also we're proposing access to direct
5 -- to State Road 29 directly on the southern
6 boundary of the property.
7 MR. BANKS: They have a restriction how close
8 you can be to an intersection because if cars line
9 up and start backing up where you need to turn in,
10 they don't want the cars backed up into the
11 intersection.
12 MR. ARNOLD: And I think staff has already
13 indicated that, you know, there may be some turn
14 lane requirements, and it's a little early for us
15 to know, but we're working with them to determine
16 whether or not -- what length and what turn lane.
17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: If you can stack
18 (indiscernible) I mean, you can stack
19 (indiscernible) cars.
20 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah.
21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And that access, the
22 one shown on State Road 29, if it was allowed, I'm
23 not saying it is, we're going to -- that's actually
24 a DOT, Florida Department of Transportation
25 controls that road, if we were allowed to have that
Packet Page -62-
2/23/2016 9.A.
yf
10
1 access, it would only be a right in and right out,
2 not a full intersection.
3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What does that
ii
4 mean? Does that mean that a traffic light would be
5 there or not ---
i
6 MR. ARNOLD: No. It probably would never
7 qualify for a traffic light because of the traffic
8 sign at Westclox and State Road 29. But staff is
9 just questioning, as the chief was saying, whether
10 or not you have enough room to stack cars and a
11 turn lane to get them safely off the road so you
12 don't cause traffic to back up into the
13 intersection.
14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Because there is
15 no light. There is nothing there.
16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But it's only
17 right in and right out. It's not -- is what you' re
18 saying?
19 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. It would be a right in,
20 right out only.
21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, they're still
22 -- they're still talking about putting a traffic
23 light at 29 and Westclox.
24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible)
25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We just don't know
Packet Page -63-
2/23/2016 9.A.
11
1 when.
2 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What
4 (indiscernible) .
5 MR. ARNOLD: We've got a variety of -- they
6 call it, in the county, they call it neighborhood
7 commercial-type uses. And it allows everything
8 from -- we've got a list. Sharon, do you have that
9 handy? We can kind of go through the list if you
10 want.
11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Do you have any
12 update on the status of the traffic signal?
13 MR. BANKS: We're still waiting on FDOT.
14 They're monitoring the intersection.
15 MR. ARNOLD: Hey, guys, could we --
16 MR. BANKS: (Indiscernible) warrants it,
17 that's when they said they will signalize it.
18 MR. ARNOLD: If we could, just try to hold the
19 conversation to one at a time. We're trying to
20 tape and it's a pretty sensitive thing and it just
21 creates a lot of static if we can't get one at a
22 time. So if we would try to do that.
23 To answer your question, we've got everything
24 on there from general business-type offices. We've
25 asked for things like some limited automotive
Packet Page -64-
2/23/2016 9.A.
12
1 services, barber shops, beauty shops, bookkeeping
2 services, restaurants, things of that nature.
3 There's a whole list of them. Anybody who wants a
4 copy of what we've submitted to the county, we'd be
5 happy to either e-mail it to you or if you'd rather
6 get a hard copy, we can get copies to Christie or
7 somebody at the CRA if that's more convenient for
8 you all to pick it up in that manner. Or Nancy
9 would be happy to provide it to you as we make
10 submittals, because the document that I have
11 tonight will probably be modified several more
12 times with refinements to it before we get a final
13 product that will be heard by the Planning
14 Commission.
15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The question I'm
16 hearing from everybody, it doesn't look like we're
17 going to get Walmart, so why in the world do they
18 need to rezone that for commercial? There's no
19 reason for it.
20 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the property right now is
21 zoned agriculture, but it's in your neighborhood
22 commercial land use designation. So it's intended
23 to be commercial in the future. Barron Collier is
24 going through the entitlement process and at least
25 get a commercial planned development established on
Packet Page -65-
2/23/2016 9.A.
13
1 it, because we do think that something is going to
1
2 happen on the northern corner. I don't know the
3 status of Walmart. Rich, I don't know that you
4 know anything more than I do, which is we don't
5 know anything about the status of that, but
6 presuming that something of a larger format moves
7 ahead on that intersection, we think it will, as we
8 made the case at that point in time, stimulate
9 other activity near the -- near that activity.
10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You just join,
11 right?
12 MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Come on in. Do you want
13 to take one of these chairs so you can see the
14 screen?
15 Mr. Thomas, hello.
16 MR. THOMAS: Yes. I've been here for some
17 time. I'm going to share some information with
18 you.
19 Can you hear me over there?
20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes, sir.
21 MR. THOMAS: I'll talk a little louder if I
22 have to.
23 A lot of people from the midwest have been
24 coming to Naples, okay? And they find Naples to be
25 a wonderful place to come, but we're finding out
Packet Page -66-
2/23/2016 9.A.
14
1 now, and the big markets know this already, that
2 the people from the northeast that have been coming
3 to the Orlando area are sick and tired of the
4 people coming down to go to Disneyland. So they've
5 been buying land and buying houses in the Labelle
6 area.
7 Walmart understands that and that's why they
8 have decided to think about building the facility
9 here in Immokalee. And that facility in Immokalee
10 would be on the northwest corner of Westclox and
11 29.
12 Remember that on the northeast corner of
13 Westclox and 29, we have a DRI that the county went
14 after using the hospital as their point. But
15 Naples Community Hospital has a lot of problems
16 financially, so they've kind of backed off from
17 that, but they still have a medical facility there,
18 and behind that medical facility they have a
19 situation similar to Ave Maria where people can
20 develop.
21 So what's happening now, because a lot of the
22 people from the northeast part of this country have
23 been coming to that area, getting tired of all
24 those young kids and all the stuff down there, have
25 been moving down to the Labelle area and buying big
Packet Page -67-
2/23/2016 9.A.
{
15
1 lots and nice houses.
2 So the people from Walmart said, whoops, we've
3 got a new customer base. And what can be better
4 than a customer base where I can bring my wife to
5 the Walmart, hello, I'll come back and pick you up
6 in an hour because I'm going down to the casino.
7 Or I'm going to buy some cigars up there and I'm
8 coming back to the casino and I'll come back and
9 get you.
10 We are the number one tourist destination
11 place in this part of the country. Fred Thomas,
12 Immokalee? Number one tourist destination place?
13 But think about it. Within two hours of
14 Immokalee by car, you can do everything you want to
15 do on vacation except one thing, and that's snow
16 ski, but we've got a (indiscernible) , just like
17 they have over in Dubai, because out in the middle
18 of a desert, what did they do? They built a snow
19 :. slope, where everybody can come and do everything.
20 And we've got a snow slope over there that we can
21 do everything.
22 In order to protect that, there's two things
23 we've got to do. One, that traffic, trying to
24 bring all of that fertile stuff over to Labelle
25 needs to go up through -- I can't remember the name
Packet Page -68-
2/23/2016 9.A.
• 16
1 of that street -- it's the exit before Immokalee on
2 75, they need to go up that way, go around
3 Immokalee with all those big trucks, not affecting
4 our traffic coming to Immokalee, but you got more
5 and more people coming to the casino now that we
6 got a hotel and all the rest of that stuff, they're
7 coming to us. We don't want them to have to wait
8 on traffic on that road. Okay?
9 Understand, Walmart understands that. They're
10 not stupid. Just like I said earlier, I don't want
11 to go shopping with my wife, but I'll drop her off
12 to go shopping if I can go get my cigars, go down
13 to the casino and have some fun.
14 We need to think about those kinds of things
15 because Immokalee has to become a walking
16 community. That casino built that hotel because
17 they knew that the people from the midwest -- I'm
18 from New York City. You have to excuse me. I'm
19 from New York City. And in New York, we speak 11
20 different Englishes. In Immokalee, we speak about
21 nine. Why do we speak nine Englishes in Immokalee?
22 Because we're just like New York was in the old
23 days, where people are swimming to shore,
24 (indiscernible) people from the Caribbean swimming
25 to shore to develop a new lifestyle, to get a
Packet Page -69-
2/23/20169.A. `.
17
1 chance to do great things.
2 I get sick and tired of everybody worrying
3 about the southern border when the northern border
4 is more porous than the southern border.
5 What do I mean by the northern -- drug dealers
6 understand it, because what the drug dealers are
7 doing now is putting tons of marijuana and heroin
8 and those kinds of things in their high-speed
9 boats, going up the west coast of this country,
10 going into Alaska, where there's very few places
11 they can lock into, loading them big
12 tractor/trailer rigs and bringing them back.
13 How do you know that, Fred Thomas? Because me
14 and my wife went out to that part of the country.
15 We decided to go because they had a conference in
16 -- was it Seattle, Cheryl, a conference in Seattle
17 for my national professional association, and I
18 told the people riding with me, who was the
19 existing executive director of the housing
20 authority and some other staff people like that, I
21 said, hey, you all, make sure you have your
22 passport or good ID.
23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You better let
24 someone else have some questions.
25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Why don't we save
Packet Page -70-
2/23/2016 9.A.
18
IG
1 you to the last so you can finish. Let's go ahead
2 and take some more questions from other people.
3 MR. THOMAS: If you want me to stop now, I'll
4 stop, sir.
5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE; I think we need some
6 questions from other folks here.
7 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir, boss. Yes, sir, boss.
8 But we need to protect Immokalee because it' s
9 the number one tourist destination place, but I 'll
10 answer any questions you have, but let me finish my
11 last statement.
12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Let (indiscernible) .
13 MR. THOMAS: When we started to come back into
14 this country --
15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It has nothing to
16 do with -- they're just talking about that
17 (indiscernible) there.
18 MR. THOMAS: The reason why -- the reason why
19 it has something to do with that is for you all to
20 understand that Walmart understands.
21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But we can't clean
22 up Immokalee. Immokalee does not look like a place
23 people want to come to.
24 MR. THOMAS: Excuse me.
25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We have the
Packet Page -71-
id
2/23/2016 9.A.
19
1 hardest time at CRA trying to get places cleaned up
2 here. If you can't clean up, people are not going
3 to come.
4 MR. THOMAS: I agree with what you're saying,
5 but you got to understand --
i
6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Then you got to
7 come to the meeting. People got to come to the
8 meetings and say we got to clean this place up.
9 MR. THOMAS: I agree with you. I'm not
10 disagreeing with you. But have any of you been to
11 San Jose, Costa Rica?
12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm not -- we need
13 to talk about --
14 MR. THOMAS: No, hold on a minute. Hold on a
15 minute.
16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: No. No.
17 Immokalee is the place that needs to be addressed.
18 MR. THOMAS: The reason why I brung up San
19 Jose, Costa Rica, the largest town in that country,
20 hello, and every store on their main street, they
21 got a armed guard out front.
22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Fred --
23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We got to go home.
24 MR. THOMAS: The point I'm making --
25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Fred, it's not --
Packet Page -72-
2/23/2016 9.A.
20
1 it is Immokalee. We need to talk about Immokalee.
2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah.
3 MR. THOMAS: But I'm saying, but people come
4 to Immokalee --
I
5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We cannot -- we
6 cannot -- I come to meetings, we can't get people
7 to clean up Main Street.
8 MR. THOMAS: But, see, the point --
9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It is most
10 difficult --
11 MR. THOMAS: -- before you worry about
12 cleaning up Main Street, we want Main Street to
13 look like Central America.
14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: No. We want it to
15 be clean. We don't want -- care what it looks
16 like. It needs to be clean.
17 MR. THOMAS: I'll come back later.
18 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. We' ll come back to you.
19 Yes, ma'am.
20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: One of the things
21 with the statement that you were making was that
22 Walmart does know and that's why it's building in
23 Labelle.
24 MR. THOMAS: They've already built one in
25 Labelle.
Packet Page -73-
2/23/2016 9.A.
21
1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. So now
2 we've got one in Labelle. And he was saying that
3 that Walmart that was going to come here is iffy --
i
4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes.
5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- at this point.
6 MR. ARNOLD: No. I think I said we really
7 don't know the status of it.
8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: He doesn't know
9 the status of what Walmart is going to do.
10 MR. THOMAS: The status of it is based on what
11 our county does. The status of it is what our
12 county does and how_ much problems they make for
13 Walmart to come here, but the people want to bring
14 that Walmart here because they know the traffic is
15 coming this way. And that's what I'm trying to get
16 across, that we, because of our location, you can
17 get the flavor of Central America, still drink the
18 water, you don't need a passport, and if you're
19 from the midwest, oh, I feel like I'm in Central
20 America.
21 MR. ARNOLD: Well, Fred, I know you've got a
22 big picture outlook on Immokalee, but we're here to
23 talk, really, about the ten-acre neighborhood
24 center piece.
25 MR. THOMAS: I understand.
Packet Page -74-
2/23/2016 9.A.
22
1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So you don't have
2 any business in place right now that wants to come
3 in there right now?
4 MR. ARNOLD: We do not, no. Barron Collier
5 Companies --
6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So you're just
7 going to -- okay.
8 MR. ARNOLD: -- is going through the process
9 of entitling a lot of their land.
10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And you don't know
11 about Walmart, so now you're building on this side
12 over here for some businesses that you want to come
13 in and Walmart doesn't want to come in?
14 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know, ma'am. I think the
15 answer is --
16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. So, in
17 other words, now we're going to build another
18 section to have businesses come in when we already
19 had this Walmart that was going to come in that is
20 the status we don't know about, but now we want to
21 bring other businesses on the other side, across
22 the street from where Walmart --
23 MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- Walmart,
25 supposedly, the status that we don't know about,
Packet Page -75-
ii-
2/23/20169.A.
23
ii
1 was going to be built.
2 MR. ARNOLD: I would say this --
it
3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes.
4 MR. ARNOLD: I would say -- the answer is yes,
5 but the answer is this is intended to be an
6 entirely different type of shopping. You know,
7 what we zoned for the other parcel across the
8 street was to allow a large format retail store,
9 like a Walmart.
10 This is oriented much more toward
11 neighborhood-type uses, beauty salons, things you'd
12 find at normal strip centers, grocery, barber,
13 beauty, you know, pharmaceuticals, you know, those
14 kinds of things that all of us need on a more daily
15 and regular basis.
16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But we all
17 (indiscernible) .
18 MR. THOMAS: Excuse me. Excuse me. Why would
19 those businesses come, looking at Immokalee, at a
20 place nobody knows too much about, unless they know
21 that they're going to have more traffic coming in
22 here so that they will go to those other stores?
23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And wouldn't that
24 Walmart attract more people for those businesses
25 that would be across the street from them?
Packet Page -76-
2/23/2016 9.A.
24
1 MR. THOMAS: Amen.
2 MR. ARNOLD: It certainly would.
3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Wherever Walmart
4 goes, everybody goes.
5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Can I ask a
6 question? Are we -- because I answer the phone at
7 the (indiscernible) . Can I ask, is the Walmart
8 that is coming to Labelle any more than
9 conversation like it's coming to Immokalee or for
10 sure we know it's coming to Labelle?
11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) .
12 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know anything about.
13 (Multiple simultaneous conversations. )
14 MR. ARNOLD: Could we -- guys, could we keep
15 the conversation one at a time, please?
16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So they've already
17 started, this gentleman said.
18 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know.
19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Theirs is a done
20 deal.
21 MR. ARNOLD: Chief?
22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: One of the things is
23 to give you some extra information, I deal a lot
24 with everybody in the different communities, and
25 I've got contacts all over so far.
Packet Page -77-
2/23/2016 9.A.
25
1 Here's a couple of investors that are heavily
2 looking at properties in and around Immokalee.
3 They believe that Immokalee is the next growth
4 explosion in Collier County.
5 MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So they are
7 aggressively purchasing properties in Immokalee and
8 they're looking. And a friend of mine is an
9 investor and a land use attorney and he does a lot
10 of stuff with corporations.
11 And one of the things that he does is look for
12 property that's available with the appropriate
13 zoning. This property is zoned agriculture. They
14 would never even look at it because they don't know
15 if they can build on it.
16 One of the things that landowners do is get
17 their property rezoned ahead of time, even before
18 they even have interest in it, so when those people
19 are looking for property, that pops up on the list
20 of available properties that's zoned in the
21 appropriate zoning and they will say, hey, let's go
22 look at that. They will never even look at it if
23 it's zoned agriculture.
24 So it needs to be rezoned in order for them to
25 even look at it.
Packet Page -78-
2/23/2016 9.A.
26
1 MR. ARNOLD: And I think the chief --
1
2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. Is the one
3 where Walmart is at already rezoned?
4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes.
5 MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So that's ready to
7 go, that one.
8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes.
9 MR. ARNOLD: It is.
10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So now you're
11 going to rezone this other one so you can put those
12 other businesses that you want, those other
13 businesses there.
14 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I look at it another way.
15 It's zoned agriculture and the only thing I can do
16 there today is agriculture and some other very
17 limited uses. I can put a house there. I can put
18 -- maybe I can go through another process and
19 obtain approvals for a church, but I think we would
20 all agree it's probably not the most appropriate
21 land to be agriculturally --
22 MR. THOMAS: One of the big things --
23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But if Walmart was
24 there, would you need those other businesses there?
25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes.
Packet Page -79-
2/23/2016 9.A.
27
ii
7{(
li
1 MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Would you have to
3 rezone it?
4 MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The Immokalee
6 community needs those businesses.
7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, we would
8 want that.
9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And let me tell you
10 why.
11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But, again, with
12 Hendry County having a Walmart and, of course, Lee,
13 and I know Collier does, but in Naples, why would
14 -- you know, our business here would have to go
15 Hendry County or Lee County, because it's actually
16 closer to get to those Walmarts.
17 MR. ARNOLD: I understand that, but, again,
18 this isn't about Walmart tonight. This has nothing
19 to do with Walmart. This is about zoning on
20 another piece of property.
21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Zoning -- rezoning
22 any agriculture property to anything commercial
23 would benefit the entire Immokalee community
24 because that puts tax paying property on the tax
25 rolls.
Packet Page -80-
2/23/2016 9.A.
28
is
1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's right.
2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right now today, 60
3 percent of the total property value in Immokalee
4 fire district does not pay any taxes. 40 percent
5 of the properties in Immokalee are the ones
ti
6 supporting the entire community because 60 percent
7 don't pay taxes. They're either non-profit, tax
is
8 exempt, or because of homestead exemption, they
9 don't pay taxes.
10 We need stuff that pays taxes.
11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: This property
12 would be good for the community.
13 MR. THOMAS: But instead -- remember this,
14 Walmart has already agreed, already agreed to pay
15 for, to pay for the stoplight and the turning zone
16 lanes and whatnot so they have two zones to come
17 in. One just above Westclox and one at the
18 Westclox thing. And they've agreed to pay for --
19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's right.
20 MR. THOMAS: -- the traffic light.
21 MR. ARNOLD: Well, just to clarify what Mr.
22 Thomas is saying, it's not really Walmart that
23 agreed to do that. It's tied to the zoning
24 document that was approved by the county
25 commission, but it's really the developer has to
Packet Page -81-
2/23/2016 9.A.
{
29
1 make those provisions. It may or may not be
2 Walmart.
3 MR. THOMAS: The developer. And who's the
4 developer?
5 MR. ARNOLD: Barron Collier Companies
6 currently own the property.
7 MR. THOMAS: Yeah. And Barron Collier is not
8 stupid. They're not going to do anything that is
9 not going to make money for them. Trust me on
10 that.
11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Amen.
12 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else have any comments we
13 haven't heard from?
14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm confused,
15 because I thought this was a Walmart meeting.
16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, apparently, there's some
17 social media that was going around that said this
18 was related to Walmart, and this meeting has
19 nothing to do with the Walmart property. This has
20 to do with property at the southwest corner of
21 Westclox and State Road 29. It' s a ten-acre parcel
22 owned by Barron Collier Companies, and we're going
23 through the process to rezone this for a
24 neighborhood-oriented shopping center.
25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So
Packet Page -82-
2/23/2016 9.A.
30
1 (indiscernible) .
2 MR. ARNOLD: Well, we're here representing the
3 property owners. I don't know who sent out social
4 media. Anything can go out on social media, but ti
5 we're not here for Walmart.
6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But what you might
7 have heard --
8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What we are
9 talking about is across the street from where
10 Walmart would have been, and I did think also
11 myself that this was a Walmart meeting. That's why
12 I was here because the community is very interested
13 in the Walmart coming to Immokalee as soon as
14 possible. Hopefully, the status on that will
15 change sometime soon.
16 But now were talking about other businesses,
17 other -- first, we can't get the first one, but
18 we're going to start getting ready for the second
19 one.
20 MR. ARNOLD: Well, this is in your
21 redevelopment area. This is in your community
22 redevelopment area. It's in your CRA boundary.
23 There's water and sewer facilities here. There's a
24 lot of homes being built west of here. There's
25 schools nearby. There are a lot of other reasons
Packet Page -83-
2/23/2016 9.A.
31
1 that somebody would want to build commercial
2 businesses here to support Immokalee.
3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We live right by
4 it.
5 MR. THOMAS: The water sewer district has
6 prepared itself by increasing the water
7 availability and the sewer availabiity all the way
8 up to that point and they wouldn't get involved in
9 that if they didn't know something was coming in
10 that direction.
11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible)
12 positive to make --
i
13 MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- to mention.
15 MR. ARNOLD: Go ahead.
16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's based on --
17 this plaza -- I mean, this area there, I'm a
18 businessman. Let's say I come to Immokalee.
19 There's already a beauty salon, a barber shop, some
20 more things like that in town. But guess what? I
21 couldn't even rent a place around here. I can't
22 find a decent place to actually open up my own
23 business.
24 So by having that there, this is as good as a
25 Walmart. I can expand, I can go out there to a
Packet Page -84-
2/23/2016 9.A.
li
32
1 better location, saying, all right, I have this
2 location, this place is good, it's neat, I can
3 present my business there. So it's as good as
4 Walmart to me, so.
5 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Anybody else?
6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So we're going to
7 be attracting more small businesses in that area
8 there.
9 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think, as the chief said,
10 Immokalee relies on that. I mean, that's been the
11 bread and butter of most communities.
12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Competition.
13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And even though
14 Immokalee --
15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) .
16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Even though
17 Immokalee, I'm not saying anything that you said
18 was wrong, because I do agree to a certain point,
19 even though Immokalee -- but it's still -- it's
20 still very attractive, like he was saying, for
21 these businesses. That's why prices of the houses
22 have gone up so high. So it's very attractive.
23 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Can I ask one more
25 question?
Packet Page -85-
hi
2/23/2016 9.A. `
33
1 MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Of course.
2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: With the
3 conversation of Walmart, I'm not talking about
4 Walmart, there was a development for middle class
5 housing associated with Walmart, is going to build
6 over there. Are you going to build something?
7 We hear in the grapevine that it was some
8 houses -- called the Hatchery or something, it was
9 going to be called for middle class.
10 MR. ARNOLD: There was Hatcher's Preserve
11 project, I think, that had been previously
12 approved.
13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Is that still
14 coming --
15 MR. ARNOLD: Donna, you probably know more
16 about it than I do.
17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Whether or not we
18 get a Walmart, is that still on the drawing board?
19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's under
20 construction. Its rental, affordable housing --
21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes.
22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- non-farmworker.
23 It's under construction.
24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Oh, it's just
25 affordable? That means a middle class person who
Packet Page -86-
2/23/2016 9.A.
34
1 has an income can't move in there?
2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's low income.
3 MR. THOMAS: But that's further back.
4 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
5 MR. THOMAS: If you go to the front end of it,
6 they've got some areas up there between Carson Road
7 and 29 that are going to be set up for another
8 gated community.
9 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I don't know anything
10 about that one, Fred.
11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Do you have a
12 design of how the building -- how you're going to
13 separate the buildings or anything yet?
14 MR. ARNOLD: We don't yet. We're working
15 toward that and at zoning level, we don't typically
16 get into a lot of details.
17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
18 MR. ARNOLD: It's still subject to change
19 based on end users, but that's something we are
20 working toward.
21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: For the most part,
22 this is going to be like a strip center, just a row
23 of stores?
24 MR. ARNOLD: That's probably what we're likely
25 to see, an L-shape or a U-shape of some sort, but
Packet Page -87-
2/23/2016 9.A.
35
1 not determined yet.
2 MR. THOMAS: It will be just like the facility
3 they put down at the corner of Collier Boulevard
4 and 846, Immokalee Road. When they put that
5 facility in, a lot of (indiscernible) a lot of
6 small (indiscernible) came in there because they
7 know it's attracting business that they can buy
8 things you can't get in a Walmart, but you want to
9 get in the stores around it.
10 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Anything else? Anybody?
11 Just to remind everybody, there will be public
12 hearings held on the zoning case later in the fall
13 and you're going to get signage posted on the site.
14 You'll be obtaining notices from Collier County
15 government if you live within, I think it's 500
16 feet, Nancy?
17 MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
18 MR. ARNOLD: Plus there will be general
19 advertisement. I'm sure your CRA will keep you
20 posted with regard to those public hearing
21 schedules as well, and then it would be heard by
22 the Board of County Commissioners for final action,
23 we hope, sometime late fall, before the first of
24 the year.
25 Anything else?
Packet Page -88-
2/23/2016 9.A.
36
fi
ii
1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible)
2 project for 2016 that will come to Immokalee
3 (indiscernible) ?
4 MR. ARNOLD: What's that for 2016, I missed,
5 Cheryl, the first part of it.
6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: This is a project,
7 if it's approved late September, like you're
8 saying, of 2015, this is a project that will start
9 building in 2016?
10 MR. ARNOLD: That's the earliest that it
11 could.
12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's the
13 earliest?
14 MR. ARNOLD: Right.
15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But this hearing
16 you're talking about, would it be of benefit for
17 citizens of Immokalee to go to this meeting?
18 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think if you're
19 interested, it's either good to communicate with
20 your Planning Commission or your county
21 commissioners, whether it's in writing, e-mails,
22 telephone calls, come to the meetings. I know that
23 it's -- it's a trip to go back to town. I don't
24 know for sure, but I just don't know that the
25 Planning Commission is going to host a special
Packet Page -89-
2/23/2016 9.A.
37
1 meeting out here unless maybe there are other items
2 on the agenda for Immokalee, but I think, at this
3 point, I would assume that it's going to be in the
4 Naples area. And, again, you're going to get
5 notice.
6 But, sure, any -- anybody who wants to come
7 and speak for it or against it, that's a public
8 hearing and that' s why it's there, for you to be
9 heard.
r:.
10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: They're mostly for
7
11 it, though. There's not much concern, is there,
12 for rezoning?
13 MR. ARNOLD: We really haven't heard that, but
14 it doesn't mean that somebody won't have an
15 objection. We just don't know.
16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Do you have
17 concerns with it? You're at the county, right,
18 Nancy?
19 MS. GUNDLACH: Haven't heard of any at this
20 time.
21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I think it's a
22 great --
23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: The only thing I
24 have a concern -- what -- the red light there, what
25 is going to happen with that? I mean you said it
Packet Page -90-
2/23/2016 9.A.
r4
38
1 was contingent on that Walmart deal or --
x
2 MR. ARNOLD: Well, a lot of the same comments,
3 Kari (phonetic) , are coming back on this project as
4 well. It talked about having proportionate
5 payments toward signalizing and putting pedestrian
6 crossings and things of that nature. I would
7 almost bet that we have very similar if not the
8 same conditions that the county wants to impose on
9 this project.
10 So whoever comes in first is going to bear the
11 burden of having to make those improvements.
12 Wouldn't you say that's fair, Jim and Rich?
13 MR. BANKS: Yeah, they -- again, FDOT is
14 monitoring this intersection. When it reaches
15 (indiscernible) going to be signalized. And when
16 -- at the time we thought the Walmart was coming
17 in, which still may, that was going to be one of
18 the triggers that actually helped the intersection
19 get over those thresholds, and -- but, yeah, the
20 county is setting it up to where this site would
21 also pay a proportionate share for signalizing that
22 intersection.
23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: As it is right
24 now, it's a very dangerous intersection, as it is
25 right now.
Packet Page -91-
2/23/2016 9.A.
39
1 MR. BANKS: We relayed (indiscernible) .
Ir
2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's even
3 without the Walmart and without the other
4 businesses that would come in.
5 MR. BANKS: Yeah. During the Walmart
6 neighborhood information meeting, you all's
7 comments were taken. I actually relayed that to
8 the (indiscernible) .
9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But I 'm saying
10 you're going to get -- even if Walmart wasn't even
11 involved --
12 MR. BANKS: Yes, I agree, and I relayed --
13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Or this other
14 thing wasn't even involved.
15 MR. BANKS: Yes, and I relayed those comments
16 to the Florida Department of Transportation. They
17 said it currently does not meet crash warrants, but
18 that's --
19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: When did they take
20 their survey? Probably right now, right?
21 MR. BANKS: I'm repeating what FDOT, you know,
22 told me, but that is part of -- one of the triggers
23 for signalizing that intersection, what they call a
24 crash warrant. And they said currently the traffic
25 volumes and the number of crashes per year do not
Packet Page -92-
2/23/2016 9.A.
40
1 warrant a traffic signal.
2 But I will say this. When either one of these
3 corners do develop, it will be very likely that
4 that will be the trigger that gets that
5 intersection signalized.
6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Does it matter
7 that there are few exits out of Immokalee? I mean,
8 if you have an accident down that way, you can't
9 get into Immokalee.
10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. But you
11 need enough accidents in order for them to be able
12 to do something about it.
13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes.
14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Was a traffic study
15 ever completed during the correct time of year?
16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that was a little
17 bit of some misinformation, Chief. The traffic
18 study that Jim Banks did and did do for this one,
19 it's all annualized traffic counts. It's not as if
20 somebody stood out there a certain day and counted
21 these. They're based on trip generation studies
22 for different types of uses. The county publishes
23 their peak hour and volume reports for these
24 roadways. And then •Jim takes that information and
25 looks at his traffic numbers.
Packet Page -93-
2/23/2016 9.A.
41
1 MR. BANKS: Yeah, we -- the data was collected
2 in June, but then it was adjusted to reflect
is
3 seasonal conditions, which was a 30 percent
4 increase. So the data that we -- was collected at
5 that intersection was then added -- increased by 30
6 percent to reflect seasonal conditions.
7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. The last
8 traffic study I saw didn't have that adjustment on
9 it.
10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Uh-huh.
11 MR. BANKS: Both studies that I did, the
12 Walmart and this one, both reflect a 30 percent
13 increase in the intersection traffic.
14 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else?
15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. Is it a 30
16 percent increase or is it more? I mean, how do we
17 know that it's 30 percent? (Indiscernible) .
18 MR. BANKS: Actually, it' s not quite that high
19 for Immokalee, but we used a more conservative
20 estimate. Actually, Immokalee is more about 20 --
21 you all's traffic is more consistent throughout the
22 year than, say, like at the -- say, near the
23 beaches, where you have a lot of tourists and stuff
24 that come in during the winter months. You all's
25 traffic is usually about 20 percent difference
Packet Page -94-
2/23/2016 9.A.
42
1 between the peak season and the middle of summer, !F
2 but we still took a more conservative estimate and
3 used a 30 percent adjustment rate.
4 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir?
5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Correct me if I'm
6 wrong, weren't we informed at the CRA meeting that
7 the state said they did not have the money to put a
8 stop sign there or a red light and it would be five
9 years before they had the money?
10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, they're not
11 going to put it in. They're going to require the
12 developer to put it in.
13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: The developer.
14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah.
15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So --
16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Would be collier.
17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- whether we have
18 met the requirements saying that we -- we could
19 have one, you know, they weren't going to put one
20 in.
21 MR. BANKS: Well, based on -- based on the
22 data that we collected, so everybody is aware of
23 this, based on the traffic volume data that we
24 collected, they are correct in their statements
25 that it does not meet volume warrants.
Packet Page -95-
2/23/2016 9.A.
43
1 Now, you can debate whether or not it meets
2 crash warrants or not. That's what they told me.
3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes.
4 MR. BANKS: But, yes, it is pretty much that
5 they're using one of these projects as going to be
6 a catalyst to help fund this traffic signal.
7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: They fill out
8 (indiscernible) . This is what I don't understand.
9 We're not meeting the traffic requirements, but
10 then the state wants to do a loop road because
11 there's so much traffic. So somebody is telling
12 stories or somebody is not giving accurate
13 (indiscernible) .
14 MR. ARNOLD: Part of that, too, I mean, that's
15 a whole other debate about either the bypass or
16 improvements to State Road 29, but there's a lot of
17 truck volume out here that isn't prevalent in other
18 parts of the county and I think that's part of the
19 analysis they're looking at.
20 Anything else, anybody? If not -- yes, ma'am,
21 back there.
22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: All we want to
23 know --
24 MR. ARNOLD: Speak loudly so we can hear you
25 on tape, okay?
Packet Page -96-
2/23/2016 9.A.
44
1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: All we want to tr
2 know, is Walmart coming and when? (Indiscernible)
3 82 to go to Walmart is a lot more dangerous getting
4 on that road.
5 MR. ARNOLD: Well, as I said earlier, I wish I
6 had an answer for you. I don't know the status of
7 Walmart, but the approvals that we had across the
8 street would allow something -- Walmart or
9 something very similar to go in. I don't know the
10 status of Walmart and their decision making to
11 build or not build.
12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
13 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else? Nancy? Oh, yes,
14 ma'am, okay.
15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So what is the
16 other project? I read something about another
17 project across from (indiscernible) ?
18 MR. ARNOLD: Well, that's the -- tonight's
19 meeting, as I said, there was some misinformation
20 going around on social media, but this project
21 tonight is opposite the proposed Walmart site.
22 This is on the south side of Westclox. It's a
23 ten-acre neighborhood shopping center.
24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
25 MR. ARNOLD: Anything else?
Packet Page -97-
2/23/2016 9.A.
45
1 Going once, twice.
fi
2 MR. THOMAS: I just want to remind everybody iE
Fr
3 that the Immokalee water/sewer district that
4 provides water and sewer to our community didn't go
5 that far, but now they've gone and paid and gotten
6 some federal grants to bring that water supply all
7 the way up to Westclox. And they wouldn't do that
8 unless they knew something was getting ready to
9 happen out there.
10 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
11 Anybody else? If not, we're going to close
12 the neighborhood information meeting and, again, if
13 anybody would like an electronic copy of our
14 submittals, POD documents, the master plan, Sharon
15 has a lot of business cards. We're happy to e-mail
16 it to you if you'd like to get an e-mail. If not,
17 write your name on the back of one of Sharon's
18 cards. We can mail it to you or we can give copies
19 to Christie and she can disseminate it to whomever
20 may want to contact her. All right?
21 Thanks, everybody. Goodnight.
22 (Recording concluded. )
23
24
25
Packet Page -98-
2/23/2016 9.A.
46
li
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
2 COUNTY OF COLLIER
3
4 I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that:
5 1. The foregoing pages numbered 1 through 45
6 contain a full, true and correct transcript of
7 proceedings in the above-entitled matter, transcribed
8 by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from a
9 digital audio recording.
10 2. I am not counsel for, related to, or
11 employed by any of the parties in the above-entitled
12 cause.
13 3. I am not financially or otherwise
14 interested in the outcome of this case.
15
16 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED:
17
18 Date: August 14, 2015
Joyce B. Howell
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Packet Page -99-
2/23/2016 9.A.
Notice Notice
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, February 23, 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
enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence
at 9:00 A.M.The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows:
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,
the.Collier County Land Development Code, which established
the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida by,amending the appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification
of the herein described real property from an Agricultural
(A) zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a
Commercial Planned Unit Develdpment(CPUD)zoning district to
allow up to 100,000 square feet of commercial uses for a project
to be known as Westclox 29 CPUD on property located at the
southwest quadrant of SR-29 and Westclox Street in Section
29, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida
consisting of 9.5± acres; and by providing an effective date.
(PUDZ-PL20150000660)
A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the
Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are
Q. invited to attend and be heard.
NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any.agenda item must
m register with the County manager prior to presentation of
the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be
limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual
to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged.
I al
-, If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or
`< organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item.
. 01
ry Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in
o the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum
of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case,
written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall
be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of
ro seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in
presentations before the Board will become a permanent part
of the record. j
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board '
will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and
therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
m proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is based.
If you are aperson 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
Donna Fiala,Chairman
DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK
By: Teresa Cannon
Deputy Clerk(SEAL)
February 5,2016 . No.922464
Packet Page-100-