Agenda 12/12/2017 Item #17A12/12/2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a
rezone from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Logan/Immokalee CPUD, to allow a
maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for specific commercial uses, for
property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 18.6± acres; and by
providing an effective date [PL20160001089]. (This is a companion item to Agenda Item 17.B and
Agenda Item 16.D.15).
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 to render a decision regarding the petition; and to 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 proposes a maximum of 100,000 square feet of retail and office
uses on an 18.6± acre site. This PUD has a companion Small Scale Growth Management Plan GMP
Amendment known as the Logan/Immokalee Commercial Infill Subdistrict. A majority of the subject site
is undeveloped and a portion of the site is currently used for miscellaneous agricultural purposes.
The Master Plan depicts the proposed project, including areas of proposed building, parking, vehicular
circulation, water management area, and preserve. The Master Plan shows a minimum of 30% open space
is provided. It also depicts a proposed 1± acre preserve and a 2.4 ± acre lake, located to provide buffering
to the adjacent residences in Saturnia Lakes, which is located diagonally opposite of the proposed
commercial development.
The petitioner proposes a maximum zoned building height of 35 feet and a maximum actual building
height of 47 feet.
There is a proposed 20-foot wide Type D landscape buffer (trees at 30 feet on center and a hedge where
there is adjacent vehicular use areas) along Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. Along the east
property line, a 15-foot wide Type B landscape buffer (trees at 25 feet on center and a 6-foot height
hedge, fence or wall) is proposed. Along the southern property line where there is no preserve and along
a portion of the internal west property line that is not located along Logan Boulevard, a 10 -foot wide
Type A landscape buffer (trees at 30 feet on center) is proposed.
Three deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) are being sought as part of this rezone
petition. For further information, refer to the Deviations section of the Staff Report on page 13. (See
attachment.)
FISCAL IMPACT: The Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDR) 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. If the PUD 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
12/12/2017
Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as needed to maintain
adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of
concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is
required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in
accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected
prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is
generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the
improvements. Please, note that impact fees and taxes collected were not incl uded in the criteria used by
staff and the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard petition PUDR-PL20160001089, Logan/Immokalee CPUD on November 16, 2017. The CCPC
voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the petition subject to the following revisions to the PUD Document:
- incorporation of the agent revisions presented at the CCPC hearing
- reduction of the directory sign height to 15 feet
- addition of amplified sound restrictions to the PUD Document
- addition of sexually oriented businesses to prohibited uses
- removal of the word "Concept" from the Master Concept Plan
- replacement of the word "minimum" with "maximum" in Deviation #3
- addition of language to Developer Commitment 1.A regarding trip generation rates
The above revisions have been incorporated into the PUD Document
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning
District to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as
the Logan/Immokalee 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 of County
Commissioners (BCC), 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 CPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or
other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to
arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such
areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed 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
12/12/2017
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring
the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with 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 t raffic 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.
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.II], 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 BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written
12/12/2017
materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies,
letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney’s Office. This item has
been reviewed as to form and legality, and an affirmative vote of four is necessary for Board approval.
(SAS)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the approval recommendation of the CCPC and further
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the request for PUDR-PL20160001089,
Logan/Immokalee CPUD subject to the conditions listed under CCPC recommendation, and as described
in the attached Ordinance.
Prepared by: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Staff Report-PL20160001089-Logan Blvd.-Immokalee CPUD (PDF)
2. Location Map (PDF)
3. Ordinance - 112017 (PDF)
4. Consistency Review 10-30-17 (PDF)
5. [Linked] Logan Immokalee Application (PDF)
6. NIM Minutes 6-22-17 (PDF)
7. Legal Ad - Agenda ID 4199 (PDF)
12/12/2017
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.A
Doc ID: 4199
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve a rezone from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Logan/Immokalee CPUD, to
allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for specific commercial uses, for
property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 18.6± ac res; and by providing
an effective date [PL20160001089]. (This is a companion item to Agenda Item 17.B and Agenda Item
16.D.15)
Meeting Date: 12/12/2017
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Nancy Gundlach
11/08/2017 6:20 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
11/08/2017 6:20 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 11/13/2017 1:40 PM
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 11/14/2017 3:18 PM
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 11/14/2017 3:58 PM
County Attorney's Office Scott Stone Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 11/20/2017 4:25 PM
Growth Management Department James French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 11/27/2017 7:30 AM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 11/27/2017 4:00 PM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 11/28/2017 9:40 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 11/28/2017 10:29 AM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 11/28/2017 3:24 PM
County Manager's Office Leo E. Ochs Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 11/29/2017 2:56 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 12/12/2017 9:00 AM
AGENDA ITEM 9-D
Co Fier County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT -
PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 16; 2017
SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE COMMERCIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPDD) COMPANION ITEM TO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PETITION CP-2016-
2/PL20160001100
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Immokalee Road Associates, LLC
1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, # 400
Sunrise, FL 33323
Agents: Mr. Tim Hancock, AICP Mr. Bruce Anderson, Esquire
Stantec Cheffy Passidomo, P.A.
5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard # 300 821 5a' Avenue South
Naples, FL 34108 Naples, FL 34102
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of
the subject site from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPDD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Logan/Immokalee CPUD,
to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for specific commercial
uses.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject CPUD, consisting of 18.6± acres, is located in the southeast corner of Immokalee Road
and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(See location map on following page)
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 1 of 17
a LOCATION PROJECTII
Location Map
Petition Number: PL20160001089
Zoning Map
150
�
¢a
las
mEU
f
iaa
E
TRncros�s
147
„p
c
Q
®
QdE=„
PUD
TMCT Rt
Location Map
Petition Number: PL20160001089
Zoning Map
Deviations: Zoning: Loring:
Olde Cypress DRI RPUD
Deviation N1 - zi\ Land Use: Land Use:
- - - - Golf Course Single Family Residential
Deviation N2 - Z11A f IMMORALEE ROAD
Deviation N3 - L31 26 Type D
- �_ Landscape
/3 —Buffer
I T
/ Ag 3 2 it ASf6nage
1
I
Building d--ing
!water Feature N2 I Q:)
nBmtd�"ng
III
I Futae
Aws
ZOn10g: I II caemen
t
Estates
LanUse: ffi
1Landscape
IMisc. Agriculture f 11 11 '
c
� _ i• � Buffer
ji
--�
i� i l l l l l l lI f" _III 11 1 Agriculture
Land Use:
zo' T e'D // i I - �� �('i Misc.
J)l i l
l Ann Pnpn ' _ C' ' i�'` i VstJ _ I Agriculture
Buffer
rl ((�J�I Retail —
Is, A
Zoning:
Estates
Land Use: g�+ �2.6��- ,� �� 1 Property
VacantResidential d � '�� y Grocery V Line
1.-15'.Type'B'
I Landscape
pp4 ( Buffer
Retail
6
F B Zoning:
Agriculture
mess Use; land Use:
Misc.
j ' z
Agriculture
+
rl — ve
L 10 Type A 2 I
Landscape V
Buf(er. il � Lake '1
Zoning: 1 - -
Agriculture I Ili
Land Use:
iWI I Misc. Agriculture I I
t✓I I 19 TypeA'___1- _. _- _-
Landscape
Preserve
I � Buffer - � Ingress/
O.R 1189 PG 2052 _ 0,R. 156, PG 411 Egress
--- -- Easement
IiPreserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer O.R. 5291,
1 Zoning: requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance PG 3496
Agriculture with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental
Land Use: plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance Saturnia
Misc Agriculture with LDC section 3.05.07. Lakes
Site Data: Open Space.
Site acreage: +/-18.6 acres Required: 30%of+/48.6 acres =+/-5.58 acres
Buildings: +/-100,000 SF Provided: +/-5.58 acres minimum
Lake: +/-2.39 acres 112.85 % of site)' _Preserve Area:
Preserve: +/-1.0 acres 15.4'3, of site) Required: 15% of +/-13.29_ acr—es = +/-1.99 acres
Provided: +/-1.0 acres minimum'
'D. not include Water Feature The balance of the Preserve 1'I-1.o arra) will be pronded for o f-site in aaordance.nth
the
IT 9ertion 3.65.07M.1.f. in effect as of the date of this application, January 3, 2017.
The petitioner proposes a maximum of 100,000 square feet of retail and office uses on an 18.6±
acre site; it is also a part of a companion Small Scale Growth Management Plan GMP
Amendment. A majority of the subject site is undeveloped and a portion of the site is currently
used for miscellaneous agricultural purposes.
The Master Plan, located on the previous page of this Staff Report, depicts the area of proposed
building, parking, vehicular circulation, water management area, and preserve. The Master Plan
shows a minimum of 30% open space is provided. It also depicts a proposed a 1± acre preserve
and a 2.4 ± acre lake, located to provide buffering to the adjacent residences in Saturnia Lakes,
which is located diagonally opposite of the proposed commercial development.
The petitioner proposes a maximum zoned building height of 35 feet and a maximum actual
building height of 47 feet.
There is a proposed 20 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer [trees at 30 feet on center and a hedge
where there is adjacent vehicular use areas] along Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. Along
the east property line, a 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer [trees at 25 feet on center and a 6 -
foot height hedge, fence or wall] is proposed. Along the southern property line where there is no
preserve and along a portion of the internal west property line that is not located along Logan
Boulevard, a 10 -foot wide Type A landscape buffer (trees at 30 feet on center) is proposed.
Three deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) are being sought as part of this rezone
petition. For further information, refer to the Deviations section of this Staff Report on page 13.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Immokalee Road, a 6 -lane arterial roadway, then an existing residential development
with a zoning designation of Olde Cypress Planned Unit Development (PUD), and then
an existing residential development with a zoning designation of H.D. Development PUD
East: An existing Agricultural use with a zoning designation of A (Rural Agriculture) and then
63 residential dwelling units or 200 unit senior group housing with a proposed zoning
designation of Cleary RPUD
South: An existing Landscape contractor business and landscape nursery uses with a zoning
designation of A (Rural Agriculture)
West: Logan Boulevard, a 2 -lane collector roadway, and then existing single-family homes with
a zoning designation of E (Estates)
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 4 of 17
AERIAL PHOTO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The proposed PUD rezone is consistent with the FLUE of
the GMP pending approval of the companion small scale GMP Amendment. See attached Exhibit
C: Consistency Review Memorandum dated October 19, 2017.
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 GMP using the 2016
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
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 5 of 17
AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is
currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard
within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also
approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals
that any of the following occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to
or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or
exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
C. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is
equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and
submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on
all roadways. "
The proposed PUD on the subject property was reviewed based on the applicable 2016 AUIR
Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed development
will generate approximately 449 net, new PM peak hour, two-way trips, on the adjacent roadway
segments. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed
capacities:
Roadway
Link
2016 AUIR
Current Peak Hour Peak
2016 Remaining
Existing LOS
Direction Service
Capacity
Volume/Peak Direction
Immokalee
Logan Boulevard to
D
3,200fEast
637
Road
Collier Boulevard
Immokalee
Logan Boulevard'. to 1-
D
3,5001East
616
Road
75
Logan
Immokalee Road to
C
1,000/North
380
Boulevard
Vanderbilt Beach
Road
Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate
the proposed trips for the project within the 5 -year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning
can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found
this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site consists of 13.29 acres of native
vegetation; a minimum of 1.99 acres (15%) of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under
preservation and dedicated to Collier County.
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 6 of 17
GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the
GMP, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMP amendment petition CP -2016-2/ PL -
20160001100 being adopted and going into effect.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon
which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5.,
Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and
Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as
"Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The
CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use
the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these
subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review
Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis:
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
Document to address environmental concerns. The PUD Master Plan provides one (1) acre of
Preserve on-site and the balance of the Preserve (1.0t acre) is proposed to be provided for off-site.
The off-site preserve is in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.1111. for "Off-site vegetation
retention," in effect at the time of this application. Specifically, LDC Section 3.05.07.H.l.f.i.a)
provides the following Applicability: "Properties zoned commercial where the on-site preserve
requirement is less than 2 acres in size." In addition, 3.05.07.111.£ii.c) states, "Remaining
portions of on-site preserves must be a minimum of one acre in size and shall not meet the off-site
criteria of sub -section 3.05.07 H.l.f.i.(f) and (g) above, unless preserved with higher quality habitat
not qualifying for the off-site native vegetation retention alternative." Therefore, based on the
current LDC, this petition meets the current LDC off-site vegetation retention criteria.
At the time this staff report was written, an LDC Amendment for off-site preserves was scheduled
for the October 19, 2017 CCPC hearing and a December 12, 2017 BCC hearing, but that will not
impact this application because this petition was submitted prior to any amendment to the LDC.
There were no listed species observed on the site. Bear nuisance calls have been documented
within the vicinity of the subject property. Therefore, a commitment requiring the submittal of a
Bear Management Plan with the Site Development Plan (SDP) and/or Plat has been included in the
PUD Document Exhibit F.
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) Recommendation: This project does not require
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land
development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws
and Ordinances.
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 7 of 17
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff finds this project consistent with Policy 5.1
of the Transportation Element of the GMP. This project shall not exceed a maximum of 449 net
new PM peak hour, two-way trips.
Utility Review: Public Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and recommends
approval subject to the developer providing a 15 -foot Collier County Utility Easement (CUE) and
this has been included in the PUD Document Exhibit F.
Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management staff indicated that they have no
concerns or outstanding issues with this project.
Zoning Review: Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities; the development
standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass; building location
and orientation; the amount and type of open space and its location; and traffic generation/attraction
of the proposed uses.
The total amount of allowable commercial square footage, 100,000 square feet, is in compliance
with the limitations of the Logan Boulevard/ Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict (which
is being proposed in the companion GMP Amendment). The minimum setback from the southern
property line that is diagonally opposite of Saturnia Lakes is 300 feet. The minimum setback from
all other PUD boundaries is 25 feet.
The actual building heights are not to exceed 47 feet and the zoned heights are not to exceed 35
feet. This is the same as the 35 -foot zoned height on the adjacent Agricultural zoned properties to
the east and the south.
As previously stated, there is a proposed 20 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer along Immokalee
Road and Logan Boulevard. Along the east property line, a Type B landscape buffer is proposed.
Along the southern property line and a portion of the internal west property line a Type A
landscape buffer is proposed. These buffers will mitigate the impact of the proposed development
on the adjacent properties.
REZONE FINDINGS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon
which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5.,
Planning Commission 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 basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use
the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these
subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review
Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis:
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 8 of 17
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the GMP.
The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD rezone is consistent with
all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP upon the adoption of the companion small scale
GMP amendment.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The neighborhood's existing land use pattern is characterized by Immokalee Road to the north, a
6 -lane arterial roadway, then a portion of the Olde Cypress golf course and then single-family
homes within the H.D. Development PUD. To the east is an agricultural business use with a
zoning designation of Rural Agriculture. To the south is a landscape contractor business and
landscape nursery use with a zoning designation of A (Rural Agriculture). To the west is Logan
Boulevard, a 2 -lane arterial roadway and then single-family residences with a zoning designation
of Estates. Staff is of the opinion that this project can be deemed consistent with GMP FLUE
Policy 5.4.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to
adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its
consistency with the FLUE of the GMP (upon adoption of the companion small scale GMP
amendment).
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change.
As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing district
boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed PUD zoning boundaries follow the property
ownership boundaries and coincide with the GMP subdistrict boundaries. The location map on
page 2 of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parcel.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The proposed PUD rezone is not necessary, 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
neighborhood.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone, with the commitments made by the applicant,
can been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies upon adoption that are reflected by
the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP (upon adoption of the companion small scale
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 9 of 17
GMP amendment). Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not
adversely impact living conditions in the area.
Z 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 traffic commitments contained in the PUD document.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject
to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The PUD document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure light and air
should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the
locations of proposed preserve and open space areas should further ensure light and air should not
be seriously reduced in adjacent areas. Additionally, roadways separate this project from adjacent
uses on two boundaries—Immokalee Road to the north and Logan Boulevard to the west.
10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.
Staff is of the opinion this PUD rezone will not adversely impact property values. Zoning by itself
may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market demand.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Properties surrounding this property are partially developed as previously noted. The basic premise
underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined
with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable
assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of
adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the
improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
The proposed PUD rezone 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.
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 10 of 17
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations;
however, the petitioner is seeking this PUD rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such
action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public
hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district and believes
the public interest will be maintained.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the
neighborhood or County.
15. Whether it is 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 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 GMP and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance.
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.
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 11 of 17
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
PUD FINDINGS:
LDC Section 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make
findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria."
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical
characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and
other utilities. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county
regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00
Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
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.
Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. The
PUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the
continuing operation and maintenance of common areas.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the GMP (GMP).
County 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 that analysis,
staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP upon the
adoption of the companion GMP amendment.
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 Staff Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the
proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area.
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 12 of 17
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. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable
concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any
plats and or site development plans, are sought.
Z 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.
This criterion essentially 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
most similar conventional zoning district.
The petitioner is seeking three deviations 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 most similar
conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the deviation proposed 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 literal application of such
regulations."
Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive
examination of the deviation.
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 13 of 17
Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking three deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is
directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's rationale and staff
analysis/recommendation are outlined below.
Proposed Deviation # 1
"Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.c., "On -premise signs," which permits a
maximum sign area of 80 s.£, to allow for a maximum sign area of 160 s.f. (please see illustration
on PUD Exhibit G). The copy area will contain only the project name (to be determined) with no
tenant information allowed."
Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This element as proposed is generally an aesthetic and design enhancement to create a project
identification sign to establish a `sense of place' for the project and the surrounding neighborhood.
The copy area will be limited to 160 square feet and no tenants or businesses will be advertised on
this sign. An elevation of the proposed project identification sign (Exhibit G) is attached to the
PUD Document.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has
demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and
welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10 02 13 B 5 h the petitioner has demonstrated that
the deviation is "justified as meetingpublic purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations."
Proposed Deviation # 2
"Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.2.b., "Outparcel signs,"which permits a
single ground sign for outparcels having a frontage of 150 feet or more, not to exceed 60 square feet
to permit a single ground sign up to eight feet in height and 60 square feet for each of the buildings
identified on the MCP as Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4, regardless of whether each building lies on a
separate, platted outparcel."
Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This deviation allows for Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 as shown on the MCP to have pole or ground signs
Just as if they were stand-alone outparcels. Each building if part of a platted lot would meet the
minimum frontage requirements for signage but since they will not be on separately platted lots,
this deviation is required.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGANAMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 14 of 17
demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and
welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.133.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that
the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations."
Proposed Deviation # 3
"Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.a., "Buffer Requirements," which
requires trees to be spaced no more than 30 feet on center in the landscape buffer abutting the
right-of-way or primary access road internal to a development, to exceed the minimum spacing
requirement to permit the clustering of the required trees within the perimeter landscape buffer
between Buildings 2 and 3, provided that spacing shall be no greater than 60' between required
trees or clusters of trees. While this deviation allows clustering, the minimum number of LDC
required trees shall riot be reduced."
Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Consistent with Deviation request #1, the expense of creating the water feature and project
identification sign to provide an up -scale feel and `sense of place' would be negatively impacted
without the ability to cluster shade trees and palms in a way that does not reduce the minimum
number of trees but still preserves key views of the hardscape and water scape at the corner. This
deviation is intended to promote a high-quality design element and to allow for flexibility in design
without reducing the number, height or quality of landscaping required by the LDC.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has
demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and
welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10 02 13.B.5.h the petitioner has demonstrated that
the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
plication of such regulations."
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on March 6, 2017. The following
commitments were made by the applicant:
- The development will be limited to 100,000 s.f.
- No individual tenant will be greater than 45,000 s.f.
- Spatial separation will be provided between Saturnia Lake and the proposed commercial
buildings.
- A grocery store and restaurants are proposed.
- There is "a lot of landscaping, a lot of greenery."
- There is "a lot of paver work."
- Bars and land uses that generate loud music will be restricted.
- Dry cleaners, car washes, tire stores and automobile repair land uses are prohibited.
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 15 of 17
Surplus stores and used merchandise stores are prohibited.
Amusement centers, carnivals, laser tag, and trampoline facilities are prohibited.
Adult stores are prohibited.
Movie theatres, funeral parlors, coin operated laundry, and bars are prohibited.
Bowling alleys, pool halls, skating rink, animal raising and storage facility are prohibited.
Hotels are prohibited.
Churches, gun ranges, and occult sciences are prohibited.
Nursing homes, tobacco stores and hookah lounges are prohibited.
Gas stations and convenience stores are prohibited.
The above commitments have been made part of the proposed PUD Ordinance.
For further information regarding the NLM meeting, please see Exhibit C: "Transcript of' the
Neighborhood Information Meeting. "
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDR-PL20160001089,
Logan and Immokalee CPUD, revised on October 26, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDR-
PL20160001089, Logan/Immokalee CPUD, to the BCC with a recommendation of approval.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Proposed PUD Ordinance
Exhibit B: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review
Exhibit C: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting
PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
November 2, 2017
Page 16 of 17
IU7117\:70111.106
WA4 " �t/�l/� �
NANC LACH, AICP, PLA
PRINCI L PLANNER
ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION
N
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR
ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION
APPROVED BY:
4 -TAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
PUDR-PL20160001089, LOGAN AND IMMOKALEE CPUD
October 20. 2017
Page 17 of 17
r,
I= a,
;.
to L4 17
ATE
/0 -ZS -
DATE
17
DATE
Immokalee RD
Logan BLVD NVanderbilt Beach RD
I75
À1
X3 X20 X4X16
À150
X5
À149.1À149X10
À148.2À148.1À148X12
À147.2À147À147.1À112 À88À111 À87À113À89À110
À114 À90À109
À85À115À91À108
À116 À84À92À107X22
X25
À83À93À117
À106 À82À94À118
À81À105À95À119
À104 À80À96À120
À103 À79À97À121
À102 À78À98À122
À101 À77À99À123
À100À124
À125
À1À132
À131À133 À130
X17
À129À134
À128
À127
À135 À1À126
À1À136
X7X14X17X6
À53
À52 À52
À51À51
À50
À50 À49
À48
À47
À1À46
À1
À45 À1
À44
À43À42À40À39À41
X51
X50
X52 À86
À89
À90
À91À92À93À94À95À96À97À98À99À100À101À102
À103 À104 À105 À106 À107 À108 À109 À110 À111
À112
À113
À114À115À116À117À118À119À120À121À122
À1À1
À17
À18
À19
À20
À21
À22
À23
À24
À25
À26
À27
À28
À29 À30
À31
À32
5352
52
5151
50
4950
J 48
TRACT R47
46 TRACT L
(D. E.)45
44
4342394041
TRACT B
150
149
148
147
TRACT OS15112 88111111389 87
110114 90 86
115 109 91 8592108116841079311783941068211810595811191049680120103977912110298781227710199123100124
125TRACT L11132131133 TR130OS11129134128TRACT R1127TRACT OS14126135
TRACTOS12TRACT R
TRACT R TRACT O1
TRACT L2 TR O3LANTANA CIRCLELANTANA CIRCLE
LANTANA WAY
LANTANA W
AYLONGSHORELOGAN BLVD NLONGSHORE WAY SOUTH
IMMOKALEE ROAD
JOHN MICHAEL ROADBARRIGONA COURTTRIANDRA LANES AT U R N I A G R A N D E D R I V E
ARECA COVE
DRI
PUD
E
RPUDPUD
A
PUD
RIGAS
H.D.DEVELOPMENTLONGSHORELAKE
OLDE CYPRESS
Location Map Zoning Map
Petition Num ber: PL201 6000108 9
PROJECTLOCATION
SITELOCATION
¹
ORDINANCE NO. 17 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING
ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A)
ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR
THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE
LOGANAMMOKALEE CPUD, TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM
OF 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE
FLOOR AREA FOR SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL USES, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND LOGAN BOULEVARD, IN
SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 18.6±
ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Immokalee Road Associates, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson and
Tim Hancock, AICP, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning
classification of the herein described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 28,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural
Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning
District for a 18.6+/- acre parcel to be known as Logan/Immokalee CPUD, in accordance with
[17 -CPS -01633/1375091/1] 11/16/17
Logandmmokalee CPUD
PL20160001089
Page 1
Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on
the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 2017- becomes
effective.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2017.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
, Deputy Clerk Penny Taylor, Chairman
Approved as to form and legality:
Scott A. Stone S 1 �� `% 7
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit A: Permitted Uses
Exhibit B: Development Standards
Exhibit C: Master Plan
Exhibit D: Legal Description
Exhibit E: Requested Deviations from LDC
Exhibit F: Developer Commitments
Exhibit G: Project Identification Sign Exhibit
[17 -CPS -01633/1375091/11 11/16/17
Logan/Immokalee CPUD
PL20160001089
Page 2
(9
EXHIBIT A
FOR
THE LOGAN/IMMOKALEE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(CPDD)
PERMITTED USES
The Logan/Immokalee Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) totals
approximately 18.6 ± acres of property and is located within the
Logan/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. A maximum of 100,000
square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses limited to and derived
from the permitted and conditional uses of the C-3 zoning district may be allowed,
with a maximum of 45,000 square feet of building area for each use. The project
will be developed in accordance with the development standards outlined in
Exhibit B of the PUD.
A. Permitted Uses:
The maximum development intensity allowed is 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor
area with a maximum of 45,000 square feet of building area for each use.
1. Accounting, Auditing, and Bookkeeping services (SIC 8721),
2. Apparel & accessory stores (SIC 5611 - 5699),
3. Auto and home supply stores (SIC 5531, except tire dealers, and tire, battery, and
accessory dealers - retail, and auto supply stores with service bays, lifts or other
facilities for installing such automotive parts. Any sales of home supplies must be
accessory and secondary to sales of auto supplies),
4. Banks, credit unions and trusts (SIC 6021 - 6062, limited to one (1) drive-through lane),
5. Barber shops (SIC 7241, except for barber schools),
6. Beauty shops (SIC 7231, except for beauty schools),
7. Computer and computer software stores (SIC 5734),
8. Dance studios, schools, and halls (SIC 7911 except dance halls and discotheques),
9. Drug stores (SIC 5912),
10. Drycleaning plants (SIC 7216 non -industrial drycleaning only, limited to
contemporary, environmentally -friendly or "green" cleaning methods and practices,
limited to a maximum of 1,500 square feet,
11. Eating places (SIC 5812, except dinner theaters, drive-in restaurants, industrial
feeding, contract feeding, food service, institutional, and theaters, dinner),
12. Food stores (SIC 5411 - 5499, except Convenience food stores),
13. Hardware stores (SIC 5251),
14. Health services, offices and clinics (SIC 8011 - 8049),
15. Home furniture and furnishings stores (SIC 5712 - 5719),
16. Home health care services (SIC 8082),
17. Household appliance stores (SIC 5722),
18. Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (SIC 6311-6399, 6411),
19. Medical equipment rental and leasing (SIC 7352),
20. Musical instrument stores (SIC 5736),
Page 1 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
O
21. Paint stores (SIC 5231),
22. Personal services, miscellaneous (SIC 7299, limited to depilatory salons, hair removal,
tanning salons, massage parlors and other establishments which could not be
construed to be a "sexually oriented business" as defined in the Collier County
Sexually Oriented Businesses Location and Regulation Ordinance, and is part of an
establishment such as a day spa providing other legitimate personal services or
fitness facilities),
23. Photographic studios, portrait (SIC 7221),
24. Physical fitness facilities (SIC 7991),
25. Radio, television and consumer electronics stores (SIC 5731),
26. Real Estate agents and managers (SIC 6531),
27. Record and prerecorded tape stores (SIC 5735),
28. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (SIC 5261),
29. Retail services - miscellaneous (SIC 5921, 5941 - 5949, 5992, 5994 - 5999, except
auction rooms, awning shops, building materials, fireworks, gravestones, hot tubs,
monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths),
30. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges and services (SIC 6211, 6282),
31. Schools and Educational services (SIC 8299 only), and
32. Wallpaper stores (SIC 5231).
Any of the foregoing uses that are subject to a gross floor area limitation by the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC) shall be permitted by right without the
maximum floor area limitation
Prohibited Uses:
Any use or structure permissible by right or as a conditional use or accessory use which is
not identified above.
No other commercial or professional use may be deemed to be comparable in nature
with the foregoing Logan/Immokalee CPUD list of permitted uses or with the purpose
and intent of the Logan/Immokalee Commercial Infill Subdistrict.
"Sexually oriented businesses" as defined in the Collier County Sexually Oriented
Businesses Location and Regulation Ordinance, Ordinance 91-83, as amended.
B. PRESERVE (P)
No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land
used, in whole or part, for other than the following subject to permitting:
Principal Use:
a. Preserve
2. Accessory Uses:
a. All accessory uses as permitted in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.h
b. Water Management as permitted in the LDC for Preserves
Page 2 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 CAS
Preserves may be supplemented with native plant materials to meet buffer requirements.
Supplemental plantings within preserves shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07.
Page 3 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
G
EXHIBIT B
FOR
LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Logan/Immokalee
CPUD Tract.
If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, the setback is
measured from the abutting right-of-way line.
2. If the parcel is served by an internal access way, the setback is measured
from the back of curb or edge of pavement.
TABLE
LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Requirements
Princi al Use/Structure
Minimum LotArea
10,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width
100 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
None
Maximum Height
35 feet zoned 47 feet actual
Minimum Distance Between Buildings
15 feet (3)
Minimum Floor Area
700 square feet (ground floor)
Minimum PUD Building Setbacks
Minimum setback from Southern Property
Line adjacent to Saturnia Lakes
300 feet (Principal and Accessory Uses)
Minimum setback from all other
perimeter property lines
25 feet
Setbacks for Internal Property Lines
Minimum Front yard
15 feet
Minimum Rear yard
15 feet
Minimum Side yard
15 feet or 0 feet (3)
Minimum Side yard
25 feet I1I
Waterfront
0 foot setback to LME or retaining wall if
constructed at lake control elevation (2)
Accessory Setback
10 feet
Preserve
25 feet
Page 4 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
r90
(1) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established forthe
lake. However, no setback shall allow placement of structures within
the LME.
(2) All L.M.E.'s shall be platted as separate tracts or shown as separate
tracts on the Site Development Plan (SDP), unless a retaining wall is
constructed at the lake control elevation.
(3) The minimum separation may be 0 feet where two structures are built
under separate building permits but with abutting perimeter wall (s).
Page 5 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
0
EXHIBIT C
FOR
LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
MASTER CONCEPT PLAN (MCP)
(1 Page)
Page 6 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 F®
G
Deviations:
Deviation #1 -A
Deviation #2 -A
Deviation #3 -A
Zoning:
Estates
Land Use:
Misc. Agriculture
Zoning:
Estates
Land Use:
Vacant
Residential
Future
Access
Easement I
i//IIJ
I
I
I
I
Site Data:
Olde Cypress DRI
Land Use:
Golf Course
20' Type 'D'—
Zoning:
Agriculture
Land Use:
Misc. Agriculture
Site acreage: +/-18.6 acres
Buildings: +/-100,000 SF
Lake: +/-2.39 acres (12.85 % of site)*
Preserve: +/-1.0 acres (5.4 % of site)
* Does not include Water Feature
coning:
RPUD
Land Use:
Single Family Residential
IMMOKALEE ROAD
Signage
I
T Future
7 Access
Easement
15' Type 'B'
Landscape
Buffer
I
I Zoning:
Agriculture
I Land Use:
Misc.
I Agriculture
I
I
I
ll
Property
I Line
X15' Type'B'
I Landscape
Buffer
� I
Zoning:
I Agriculture
I Land Use:
I Misc.
Agriculture
_
Ingress/
'G 2052 O.R. 156, PG 411
—=�
Egress
— — — — — — —
Easement
Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer
O.R. 5291,
requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance
PG 3496
with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental
plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance
Saturnia
with LDC section 3.05.07.
Lakes
Open Space:
Required: 30% of +/-18.6 acres = +/-5.58 acres
Provided: +/-5.58 acres minimum
Preserve Area:
Required: 15% of +/-13.29 acres = +/-1.99 acres
Provided: +/-1.0 acres minimum*
*The balance of the Preserve (+/-1.0 acre) will be provided for off-site in accordance with
the LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. in effect as of the date of this application, January 3, 2017
0
EXHIBIT D
FOR
LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER,
LYING IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BEING A PORTION OF A
PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4313 AT PAGE 2422 OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID COLLIER COUNTY AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST; THENCE 589"58'22"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 28 ALSO BEING THE
NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (150 FEET WIDE) FOR 390.37 FEET; THENCE
DEPARTING SAID NORTH SECTION LINE, SOUTH 00"01'38" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 166.85 FEET
TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID IMMOKALEE ROAD AS
DESCRIBED IN ORDER OF TAKING, OFFICIAL RECORD 3888, PAGE 1611 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY, SOUTH 89"58'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 606.56 FEET
TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND WEST
1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 28; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST
1/4 AND WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4
OF SAID SECTION 28, SOUTH 0211'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,169.86 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NW '/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28; THENCE
CONTINUE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28, NORTH
89"58'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.43 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE
EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28. THENCE CONTINUE
ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF
SECTION 28, NORTH 02"11'07" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 285.D8 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87"49'20"
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 147.65 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE, SAID POINT
BEING ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF LOGAN BOULEVARD(RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH
VARIES); THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING SIX
COURSES; COURSE ONE: NORTHERLY, 190.25 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE,
CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,132.54 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
05"06'42" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 12"16'34" EAST, 190.19
FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; COURSE TWO: THENCE NORTHERLY, 328.45 FEET
ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF
2,461.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07"38'43" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A
CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 11 "00'33" EAST, 328.20 FEET; COURSE THREE: THENCE NORTH
17"32'26" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 52.62 FEET; COURSE FOUR: THENCE NORTH 05"21'54" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 53.61 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE; COURSE FIVE: THENCE
NORTHERLY, 209.81 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,471.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04"51150" AND BEING
SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 0218'18" EAST, 209.74 FEET; COURSE SIX:
Page 7 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
GQ,O
THENCE NORTH 00"07'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 22.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45"37'16" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 49.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTION (EASEMENT 1)
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICUARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE ATTHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST; THENCE RUN ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION, SOUTH 02"10'58 EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 964.50 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST SECTION LINE, NORTH 8749'02"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 203.41 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY
OF LOGAN BOULEVARD (RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH VARIES) AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 87"49'20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 126.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02"1 1'07" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 90.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87"49'20" WEST, ADISTANCE OF 147.65 FEET TO A
POINT ON A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE AND TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID
LOGAN BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY, NORTHERLY, 91.07
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF
2,132.54 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02"26'49" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A
CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 10"56'37" EAST, 91.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 12,385 SQUARE FEET OR 0.28 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTION (EASEMENT 2)
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICUARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST; THENCE RUN ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, SOUTH 89"58'22" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 990.47 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH SECTION LINE, SOUTH 02"11'25"E,
A DISTANCE OF 166.97 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (150 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY) AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 02"l 1'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89"58'22" WEST,
A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0211'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO
AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 89"58'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 13,490 SQUARE FEET OR 0.310 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTION (EASEMENT 3)
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICUARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWESTER QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN
Page 8 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 0
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER SECTION, SOUTH 89058'00" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 879.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH
LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER, NORTH 43"55'18" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 153.91 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 02"11'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1 1 1.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID
SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 89"58'00"
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1 11.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 6,156 SQUARE FEET OR 0.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
OVERALL PARCEL CONTAINS 18.64 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Page 9 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
G
EXHIBIT E
FOR
LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
LIST OF DEVIATIONS
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.c., "On -premise signs,"
which permits a maximum sign area of 80 s.f., to allow for a maximum sign
area of 160 s.f. (please see illustration on Exhibit G). The copy area will
contain only the project name (to be determined) with no tenant
information allowed.
2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.2.b., "Outparcel signs,"
which permits a single ground sign for outparcels having a frontage of 150
feet or more, not to exceed 60 square feet to permit a single ground sign up
to eight feet in height and 60 square feet for each of the buildings identified
on the MCP as Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4, regardless of whether each building
lies on a separate, platted outparcel.
3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.a., "Buffer
Requirements," which requires trees to be spaced no more than 30 feet on
center in the landscape buffer abutting the right-of-way or primary access
road internal to a development, to exceed the maximum spacing
requirement to permit the clustering of the required trees within the
perimeter landscape buffer between Buildings 2 and 3, provided that
spacing shall be no greater than 60' between required trees or clusters of
trees. While this deviation allows clustering, the minimum number of LDC
required trees in the subject buffer shall not be reduced.
Page 10 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
EXHIBIT F
FOR
LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
1. TRAFFIC
A. The project shall not exceed a maximum of 449 net new PM Peak Hour 2 -way trips, as
based on the use codes in the ITE manual trip generation rates in effect at the time
of application for SDP approval or subdivision plat approval.
2. ENVIRONMENT
A. The minimum preserve area required by the Land Development Code is 1.99
Acres (±13.29 acres x 15% _ ±1.99 acres). A minimum preserve area of 1.0 Acre
will be provided on-site as shown on the MCP and the balance of the Preserve
(±1.0 acre) will be provided for off-site in accordance with LDC Section
3.05.07.H.1.f. in effect as of the date of this application, Jan. 3, 2017.
B. A management plan for Florida black bear shall be submitted for review and
approval at time of final plat or SDP for the project, whichever is applicable.
3. PUBLIC UTILITIES
A. Owner shall provide a 15' Collier County Utility Easement (CUE), at no cost to the
County, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, along the western boundary
of the property within 90 days of the request by the County, when and if the County
installs a force main in the future along the east side of Logan Boulevard. Any
landscaping placed within the CUE shall be removed by the County but must be
replaced (as required) at the owner's expense, in accordance with the Collier
County Utilities Standards and Procedures (Ord. 2004-31).
4. PROJECT DESIGN ELEMENTS
The project design as shown on the MCP shall incorporate the following design elements
to enhance the appearance and quality of the project:
A. In addition to LDC code requirements, a minimum of an additional 1,500 square
feet of Building Foundation Planting shall be provided.
In addition to LDC code requirements, a minimum of an additional 9,500 square
feet of Special Paving Area shall be provided.
Page 11 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
�9
O
C. In addition to LDC code requirements, a minimum of an additional 800 square feet
of Landscaping shall be provided in the Vehicular Use Area.
D. In addition to LDC code requirements, a minimum of an additional 19,000 square
feet of Green Space, including the water feature near the intersection of Logan
Boulevard and Immokalee Road, shall be provided in the Vehicular Use Area.
A minimum of one Native Live Oak or Holly tree, 10 feet in height at the time of
planting, for each 22 linear feet, totaling a minimum of 29 trees between the
vehicular use area and north side of the lake.
F. Specialty lighting (similar to outdoor string lights) will be utilized in the plaza area
between the Retail A building and the Grocery building.
G. Overall design will be architecturally unified and will apply to buildings, signage
and site lighting.
H. Monument and Directory Signs adjacent to Logan Boulevard shall be limited to 15
feet maximum in height.
No amplified sound shall be directed to the east or south property lines.
Parking Lot lighting shall use LED flat -panel full cut-off fixtures to avoid light spill
onto adjacent properties and reduce the potential impacts of site lighting.
5. MONITORING REPORT
Immokalee Road Associates LLC (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for
CPUD monitoring until close-out of the CPUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for
satisfying all CPUD commitments until close-out of the CPUD.
Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a
successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to
be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the
Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by
County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity.
Should the 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
CPUD 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 CPUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is
no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of CPUD commitments.
6. MISCELLANEOUS
Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on
Page 12 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
G
the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not
create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails
to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency
or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. All other applicable
state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development.
Page 13 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
EXHIBIT G
FOR
LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGN EXHIBIT
Page 14 of 14
Revision Date: November 17, 2017
Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089
n a
CD
m
w h
90
C-) -n
cZ
zr-
Q v
cf)X
m O
m
o�
<z
O
HO'
M
mom
M
Z o0
I
T 0
D m
Z M
M
m K
<Z
go
N T 1 N
0.;u0�0
v m z
ori D vii 0
u,m0�
rvO-nD
r�m(nm
?1�mp
0
z
m
rn
io
0
6
n
r- CD
:3
m =
cn —
C�
Z N
m _
rnn m
M
Z
oI II
CD J
i1
r
r =E
0
0
II
I'
L,
3 0"-'`
I
I
n
I
2'-0" .
0
Z
i
O
( J
l_ �I
m
�0
- --
o fi 1-%1 I
m
O
D
I
m
i
go
N T 1 N
0.;u0�0
v m z
ori D vii 0
u,m0�
rvO-nD
r�m(nm
?1�mp
0
z
m
rn
io
0
6
n
r- CD
:3
m =
cn —
C�
Z N
m _
rnn m
M
Z
oI II
CD J
i1
r
r =E
0
0
3U)T
X00
�z�
,gym
mn
m�
mm
r Z
M -j
< D
D Z
O0
zm
REV.z DATE COMMENTS
,���<.<aEGAS
n
< �
O
�0
um �rm
I '
m
D �D
<�
Z
m
D
SHEET
PROJECT: NEW BUILDING
PROJ, NO,
D 7 g. SSUEDAT i50I8110
0 159UE DATE O6 417
PLOT DATE: D& Al?
LOGAN LANDINGS (��
M
�9CPLE: AS NOTED
O (n n DRAWN BY: PEC/JC
NAPLES, FL
<u nisE. rwwoa
Ip CIIFCNEO BY: D EC
flme..a�e<. "••.1°'A°""'
vzza
3U)T
X00
�z�
,gym
mn
m�
mm
r Z
M -j
< D
D Z
O0
zm
REV.z DATE COMMENTS
,���<.<aEGAS
‒ 1 ‒
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M
To: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: revised to October 30, 2017
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of the Logan/Immokalee Commercial
Planned Unit Development (2nd memo)
PETITION NUMBER: PL20160001089 [REV: 2]
PETITION NAME: Logan/Immokalee Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)
REQUEST: The petitioner seeks to establish the Logan/Immokalee CPUD to develop up to 100,000 sq.
ft. of gross leasable floor area of commercial land uses for specific commercial uses that are permitted
by right and/or conditional use within the C-3 zoning district.
LOCATION: The subject site, consisting of approximately 18.64 acres, is in the southeast quadrant of
the Immokalee Road (CR 846) ‒ Logan Boulevard intersection, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range
26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management
Plan (GMP) designates the subject property Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict.
This petition relies, in part, on a companion GMP amendment to FLUE provisions toward achieving
consistency. That amendment [ref. PL20160001100/CP-2016-2] establishes the Logan
Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict.
Relevant to this petition, the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict provisions
allow up to 100,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area of a limited selection of commercial land uses
from the C-3 zoning district, suited to the proposed upscale development, and limits any single use to
no greater than 45,000 sq. ft. of floor area. This proposed PUD includes these square feet limitations
and the uses are consistent with those allowed by the proposed subdistrict.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) reviewed the companion GMPA petition
(PL20160001100/CP-2016-2) and provided recommendations. Those recommendations are not
applicable to the GMP amendment however, but are pertinent parts of the PUD rezone ‒ and they are
incorporated [paraphrasing] herein.
The subject property is within the primary range of the Big Cypress population of the Florida
black bear and in the South Bear Management Unit identified in the 2012 Bear Management
Plan. The FWC received 96 reports of human‒bear contact within roughly a one-mile radius of
the subject property since 2011, and the potential for contact exists within and around the area.
While black bears that live in remote areas tend to shy away from people, they are adoptable
‒ 2 ‒
and will take advantage of human-provided food sources. [in reviewing the list of commercial
uses above, it is evident that eating places and food stores are principal human -provided food
sources.] Once bears become accustomed to finding food around people, their natural wariness
is reduced to the point that there is an increased risk to public safety or private property. Early
planning and coordination with local governments and land owners prior to development can
prevent or reduce conflicts with bears by incorporating some of the following measures:
Incorporating best management practices during construction by:
• Requiring clean construction sites with wildlife-resistant containers for workers to use for
food-related and other wildlife-attractant refuse, and
• Requiring frequent trash removal and the use of proper food storage and removal on work
sites.
Measures to prevent attracting bears into the development, and working with tenants on how
to avoid human-bear conflicts are also recommended.
Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, 4. Environmental, item B. now commits to [submitting a]
management plan for Florida black bear for review and approval at the time of final plat or SDP for the
project, whichever is applicable. While this language is typically acceptable where management plans
for bear are required, it is not consistent with the direction of the FWC – and this case is not typical. The
FWC direction to incorporate best management practices during construction may not be possible if a
management plan is merely “submitted” before construction begins. In accordance with FWC direction,
staff recommends that this developer commitment be revised to ensure said management plan is
prepared in accordance with the recommendations above so it will be reviewed and approved prior to
initiating construction.
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the
surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services
staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing
the appropriateness of the requested uses/intensities on the subject site, the compatibility
analysis is to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and
surrounding or nearby properties with regard 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, traffic generation/attraction, etc.
FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote smart growth policies for new development and
redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities.
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier
County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment
projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold text].
Objective 7:
Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing
development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows:
‒ 3 ‒
Policy 7.1:
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting
collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection
spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The corner property fronts Immokalee Road
and Logan Boulevard. The Master Concept Plan depicts access to Immokalee Road, classified as
an arterial road in the Transportation Element; and to Logan Boulevard, classified as a minor
collector road.]
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The Master
Concept Plan depicts an internal array of vehicular traffic areas, parking areas and aisles that
provide customer and service access to the individual commercial establishments.]
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use
type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the
Transportation Element. [The site abuts developed or developable properties on two sides.
Interconnections with properties to the east and to the south were previously depicted on the
Master Concept Plan as either a “Possible Future Connection” or as an “Ingress/Egress Easement”.
Such labeling has been removed as the Plan has been revised; and presently, no labeling
accompanies the two interconnections depicted. Without such labeling, it cannot be determined
if, or to what extent, interconnection will be provided at these locations. Such labeling should
be added back onto the face of Exhibit C, Master Concept Plan, or similar commitments to
complete these interconnections as the adjoining properties develop can be added to Exhibit F,
List of Developer Commitments ‒ or utilize both methods ‒ to provide clear indication how
interconnection will be provided as encouraged by this Policy.
If no changes are made, or if the changes made result with no indication or commitment to
complete these interconnections, then the applicant’s compliance and consistency (narrative)
statements to both LDC provisions and FLUE Policies that application materials provide will be
recognized as outdated, indicating only what the application provided in earlier iterations. Staff
suggests the applicant revise (outdated narrative statements) accordingly to reflect current
application materials.]
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. [For the most
part, this policy has only limited applicability to this project; as a limited selection of general
commercial use types are allowed.
Regarding providing walkability, this policy promotes projects that make it safe and convenient
to walk and encourages pedestrian activity. The Master Concept Plan illustrates an all-to-
common arrangement of individual lots for commercial buildings generally surrounded by auto-
oriented parking and circulation areas where vehicles mix with pedestrians. The project will be
subject to LDC requirements for provision of sidewalks.
Open space will be provided as required per the LDC. Given the size and land uses proposed, the
remainder of this Policy would not apply.]
‒ 4 ‒
REVIEW OF PUD DOCUMENT:
Please note the Logan/Immokalee PUD petition is contingent upon approval of the companion GMP
amendment petition PL-20160001100/CP-2016-2.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future
Land Use Element of the GMP, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMP amendment being
adopted and going into effect.
It is recommended that Exhibit C, Master Concept Plan provide clear indication how
interconnection will be provided, or Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments provide
commitments to complete these interconnections as the adjoining properties develop ‒ or both
methods be utilized ‒ as encouraged by FLUE Policy 7.3.
The PUD Ordinance also needs to provide for an effective date to be linked to the effective date
of the companion GMP amendment.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
G: Comp\Consistency Reviews\2017
\\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2017\PUDZ\PUDZ PL2016-1089 Logan Immokalee R2 Con Rev_FNLr2.docx
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite300, Naples, Florida 34108-2709
V:\2156\active\215613260\planning\submittals\rezone\1st_sub\working_docs
December 8, 2016
Mr. Daniel Smith
Principal Planner
Collier County Development Services
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Subject: CPUD Rezone Application
SE Corner of Immokalee Road & Logan Blvd, Naples, FL.
Folio Numbers: 00195040001, 00195480001, 00194880000, 00195440009,
00195000009, & 00196680606
Dear Daniel,
Attached to this cover letter is an application for a request to rezone the subject property from
Agriculture (A) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD).
The property is located on the south east corner of Immokalee Road & Logan Blvd in Naples,
Collier County, FL. This application will allow for the rezone of the subject property to provide
additional commercial land uses more suitable to the location of the 18.6± acre property while
being responsive to current market conditions.
This application will allow for a mix of commercial land uses consistent with language provided
as a proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan, designating this property as the
Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, a new Future Land Use
classification. As currently structured, the proposed project would permit a mix of commercial
uses that are permitted by right and/or conditional use within the C-3 zoning district with some
less intensive C-4 uses also being permitted. The proposed limitation of 100,000 square feet of
commercial uses on the 18.6± acre area provides for a lower intensity development to serve the
surrounding community without creating compatibility concerns for the adjacent properties. The
Master Concept Plan also includes extensive buffering and setbacks to promote compatibility.
Included along with this cover letter for your review are the following:
1. Completed Application.
2. Project Narrative.
3. Pre-application Meeting Notes.
4. Affidavit of Authorization.
5. Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control.
6. Completed Addressing Checklist.
7. Warranty Deeds.
8. List identifying Owner and all parties of corporation.
9. Signed and Sealed Boundary Survey.
10. Current Aerial Photograph.
11. Statement of Utility Provisions.
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite300, Naples, Florida 34108-2709
V:\2156\active\215613260\planning\submittals\rezone\1st_sub\working_docs
12. Environmental Data Requirements, including a Listed or Protected Species survey, less
than 12 months old.
13. Traffic Impact Study.
14. Electronic copy of all required documents.
15. Completed Exhibits A – G.
16. List of requested Deviations from the LDC with justification for each (separate from Exhibit
E)
17. Conceptual Master Site Plan (24” x 36” and one 8 ½” x 11” copy)
If you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
Tim Hancock, AICP
Senior Associate
REQUEST NARRATIVE
This rezone petition proposes to rezone approximately ±18.6 acres (herein referred to
as the “Property”) from A-Agriculture to Commercial PUD (CPUD) to accommodate
infill commercial uses. The property will allow for a mix of commercial uses, including
retail, office, medical office, financial institutions and similar uses that are permitted by
right and/or conditional use within the C-3 zoning district and limited C-4 uses. The
proposed limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial uses will provide for a lower
intensity development to serve the surrounding community, therefore lessening
compatibility concerns for the adjacent properties.
Additionally, native vegetation preserve areas are identified along the south and east
property lines to provide additional buffering as well as the proposed placement of a
water management lake which serves to create separation from the nearest
residential properties.
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY WITH LDC 10.02.13
This property consists of six parcels, all under the same ownership, totaling ± 18.6. The
property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Logan Boulevard and
Immokalee Road with approximately 606’ of roadway frontage along Immokalee
Road and 1,170’ of depth. Currently the property is used for miscellaneous agricultural
purposes with primary access from Logan Boulevard. The property is directly adjacent
to agricultural uses and in proximity to established single-family residential
development to the southeast and also to the north across Immokalee Road.
Surrounding land uses include agricultural use immediately east and south of the
property including Work-A-Holics Landscaping, platted single family residential estates
to the west of Logan Boulevard, master planned single family residential communities
of Longshore Lakes and Olde Cypress to the north of Immokalee Road and to the
southeast is the residential master planned community of Saturnia Lakes. Various
commercial and civic uses are seen both east and west of the property on both sides
of Immokalee Road including Laurel Oaks Elementary School, Gulf Coast High School,
U.S. Post Office, Academy of Marital Arts, Dunkin Donuts to the east and Saint
Monica’s Episcopal Church, Eagle’s Nest Christian Academy, North Collier Fire District,
Mobil filling station, Straight From New York Bagels and Naples Pediatric Dentistry to the
west.
The proposed 100,000 square feet of retail and office land uses on 18.6 acres, or 5,376
sq. ft. per acre results in a significantly lower intensity than that permitted on similarly
sized commercial zoned parcels throughout Collier County. This lower intensity
provides an opportunity to provide commercial services to nearby residents without
creating compatibility concerns.
The development as proposed includes 1.0 acre native vegetative buffer and ± 2 acre
water management lake to the rear of the property, providing substantial buffering
and distance from the commercial development to the nearest home in Saturnia
Lakes. This creates nearly a 350’ separation between the commercial development
and the adjacent corner of the subject property abutting Saturnia Lakes. Combined
with the approximate 130 feet of native planting area within Saturnia Lakes, these
separations combined will create a distance nearly 470’ between proposed
commercial developments and the nearest residential lot.
Immokalee Road adjacent to the north of the property is a 6-lane arterial roadway.
Logan Boulevard, a 2-lane roadway is directly west of the property. The intersection of
Logan Boulevard & Immokalee Road has been improved to a 4-lane condition.
The modest commercial square footage per acre, separation of, and use of native
vegetation and landscaping, and the significant separation between the proposed
commercial development and existing residential development, as well as the existing
development patterns surrounding the property indicate the proposed project to be
consistent and compatible with the neighboring properties.
Landscape buffering will be incorporated per Collier County Land Development Code
throughout the project and the property will benefit from the native vegetative buffer
and water management lake as shown on the MCP requirements to address any
concerns regarding compatibility with the surrounding developments. The ability to be
serviced by County water and sewer will also serve to minimize adverse impacts.
Building height will not exceed 35 feet and will be designed in the general character
of neighborhood style retail uses and therefore should be consistent with the general
architecture and reasonably expected massing for commercial development. Low
intensity commercial development will also ensure there is ample usable open space
within the project.
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GMP
The proposed CPUD development will allow for a mix of commercial uses. The
proposed language will permit retail, office, medical office, financial institutions and
similar uses that are permitted by right and/or conditional use within the C-3 and C-4
zoning districts. The proposed limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial uses on
parcels totaling 18.6 acres provides for a lower intensity development to serve the
surrounding community, lessening compatibility concerns for the adjacent properties.
The proposed CPUD is consistent with the following key Growth Management Policies
and Objectives:
OBJECTIVE 5:
In order to promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and
habitat forested species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of
land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element, the following
general land use policies shall be implemented upon the adoption of the Growth
Management Plan.
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).
Response: This Rezone is proposing a maximum of 100,000 square feet of retail and
office land uses on 18.6 acres. By limiting the size to 100,000 square feet, or 5,376 sq. ft.
per acre, the overall intensity of this development is significantly lower than that
permitted on similarly sized commercial zoned or designation parcels throughout Collier
County. The proposed project is bordered on the North by Immokalee Road, a 6-lane
arterial roadway and on the West by Logan Boulevard, which has been improved at
the intersection with Immokalee Road to a 4-lane condition but tapers to 2-lanes as you
travel south. Across Logan Boulevard lies vacant land as well as Estates zoned
residential development. To the east of the subject property lies vacant Agricultural
land and approximately 800 feet east is the entrance to Saturnia Lakes, a residential
community. To the South of the subject property is an Agricultural operation inclusive of
a nursery, landscape business and associated uses. To the southeast is residential
development that is part of the Saturnia Lakes development which is the closest
residential development to the property.
A Master Concept Plan has been included with this application that shows the
intended size, scale and location of development that is proposed for the site to
address the compatibility concerns relating to noise, lighting, buffering, etc. A key
factor in the proposed development is the placement of a native vegetative buffer
and water management lake to the rear of the property to provide substantial
buffering and distance for the commercial development to the nearest home in
Saturnia Lakes. As shown on the MCP, a distance of approximately 340 feet exists
between the commercial development and the southeast corner of the subject
property adjacent to Saturnia Lakes. Of this distance, ±125 feet will be comprised of a
proposed native vegetation preserve which consists of Pine Flatwoods with minimal
exotic vegetation requiring removal. Additionally, Saturnia Lakes has a native planted
area of approximately 130 feet from the common corner point to the nearest lot line.
These factors combine to result in a distance of approximately 470 feet from the nearest
commercial building to the nearest residential lot, with 250 feet or so of that being
comprised of native plantings and preserves.
OBJECTIVE 7:
In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The
Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character
of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development
and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Response: A part of the move toward implementation of smart growth policies includes
the placement of commercial and residential land uses to promote the reduction or
elimination of vehicular use where practical. Based on the market study provided, this
area which has a significant number of residential units in the 3-mile Primary Service
Area is underserved by the existing commercial developments both today and in the
foreseeable future. By locating new commercial land uses in near proximity to existing
homes, Collier County can reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT’s) for certain uses and
basic needs. Increased access and convenience of commercial goods is a sound
planning principal in the reduction of VMT’s and therefore a commensurate reduction
in greenhouse gases. The proposed land uses in this location will serve to promote
smart growth principals in support of Objective 7.
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.
Response: This Rezone incorporates a Master Concept Plan that shows connections on
collector or arterial roadways including Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard.
Additionally, the project is providing two interconnections to properties to the east and
south with the specific intent of potentially reducing the number of direct connections
to Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard in the future.
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.
Response: The MCP included with this application provides for access through the
project from Logan Boulevard to Immokalee Road via internal drives without creating a
frontage road style connection around the proposed development. Access is provided
over and through the project to enhance connectivity.
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments
is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element.
Response: Please see the above response for Policy 7.1 that demonstrated consistency
with this policy as well as Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. The project has
provided connection points to all adjacent properties where it is feasible to do so.
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.
Response: The proposed development is designed to meet the demand in the
marketplace for neighborhood style retail uses which will serve the nearby communities
and ultimately the adjacent properties should they develop with residential uses. This
center has been specifically designed to provide a very walkable environment with
features that provide visual and aesthetic interest. These elements will be explained in
more detail in the proposed CPUD by provided details on the planned sidewalk
connections internal to the project and the pedestrian and bicycle access points that
will connect to the existing sidewalks along both Immokalee Road and Logan
Boulevard in order to more fully demonstrate compliance with this Policy.
1
July 14, 2017
Public Facilities Impact Analysis
Sanitary Sewer
The subject property is located within the North Wastewater Service area. Since the final
mix of commercial uses which will occupy the site is not known at this time, an estimation
of the wastewater generation for the project was completed using an assumption of
.125 gallons of wastewater generated for every square foot of floor area. The requested
100,000 square feet of commercial development will generate approximately 12,500
gallons of wastewater per day. Based on the 2016 Annual Inventory and Update Report
sufficient capacity is available to provide wastewater disposal services to the proposed
development.
The project will provide a connection to the 16” sewer force main located within the
Immokalee Road right-of-way at the time of site development.
Potable Water
Potable water demand for the proposed commercial development is based on an
estimated 350 gallons of potable water use for every 250 gallons of wastewater
generated. Using this assumption, the average daily potable water demand for the
development at buildout is projected to be approximately 17,500 gallons per day. Based
on the 2016 Annual Inventory and Update Report, sufficient capacity is available to
provide Potable Water services to the proposed development.
The development will provide a connection to the 24” water main located adjacent to
the property along the north side of the Immokalee Road at the time of construction.
Arterial and Collector Roadways
A detailed Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) has been provided as part of this application
which outlines the projected traffic generated by the proposed development.
The project site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee
Road and Logan Boulevard, with frontage on both roadways. Access to the site is
proposed to include a right-in/right-out (RI/RO) connection on Immokalee Road at the
northeast corner of the site, and a full access connection on Logan Boulevard at the
south west corner of the site, the latter being a shared ingress/egress connection with the
adjoining nursery/landscape business immediately to the south.
In addition to the shared access connection to Logan Boulevard, an internal connection
to the adjoining parcel immediately to the east is being provided to satisfy the code
requirements for accommodating interconnections to adjacent parcels.
The proposed development of 100,000 square-feet of commercial uses will generate
approximately 449 PM Peak hour trips. Based on the detailed analysis included in the TIS,
2
July 14, 2017
the additional traffic generated by the proposed development on the adjacent
roadways will not create a Level of Service standard deficiency.
Drainage
Prior to construction, the project will be required to obtain a permit from the South Florida
Water Management District illustrating the proposed water management system with a
detailed analysis showing the proposed development will have no detrimental effect on
the stormwater management for the surrounding area.
Solid Waste
The development will utilize dumpster containers for the storage and collection of
garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the
commercial and institutional areas. Collier County’s contract hauler, Waste
Management, will collect solid waste and recycled materials generated from the
proposed development. Solid waste collected will be hauled to the Collier County
landfill.
Using the waste generation rate of 6.1 pounds of waste per square-foot per year for
commercial uses developed by Palm Beach County, Florida in the 1995 Commercial
Generation Study, the development will generate approximately 610,000 pounds of
waste per year. This equates to an estimated 305 tons of solid waste per year. According
to the 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report (Collier County Government, Public
Utilities Solid Waste Management Department) the Collier County Landfill has capacity
through the year 2059.
Parks
The proposed commercial development will have no impact on the demand for
Community or Regional park facilities.
Fire and Rescue
Adequate Fire and Rescue protection is available to service the proposed development.
The North Naples Fire and Rescue Station 42 is located approximately .37 miles west of
the subject property. Additionally, Golden Gate Fire Station 73 is located 3.28miles from
the subject property.
1
REQUEST NARRATIVE
This rezone petition proposes to rezone approximately ±18.6 acres (herein referred to as
the “Property”) from A-Agriculture to Commercial PUD (CPUD) to accommodate infill
commercial uses. The property will allow for a mix of commercial uses, including retail,
office, medical office, financial institutions and similar uses that are permitted by right
and/or conditional use within the C-3 zoning district and limited C-4 uses. The proposed
limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial uses will provide for a lower intensity
development to serve the surrounding community, therefore lessening compatibility
concerns for the adjacent properties.
Additionally, native vegetation preserve areas are identified along the south and east
property lines to provide appropriate buffering as well as the proposed placement of a
water management lake which serves to create separation between commercial
structures and the nearest residential properties.
2
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY WITH LDC LDC SECTIONS 10.02.13 AND
10.02.08
GENERAL
This property consists of six parcels, all under the same ownership, totaling ± 18.6 acres.
The property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Logan Boulevard
and Immokalee Road with approximately 606’ of roadway frontage along Immokalee
Road and 1,170’ of depth. Currently the property is used for miscellaneous agricultural
purposes with primary access from Logan Boulevard. The property is directly adjacent
to agricultural uses and in proximity to established single-family residential development
to the southeast and also to the north across Immokalee Road.
Surrounding land uses include agricultural use immediately east and south of the
property including Work-A-Holics Landscaping, platted single family residential estates
to the west of Logan Boulevard, master planned single family residential communities of
Longshore Lakes and Olde Cypress to the north of Immokalee Road and to the
southeast is the residential master planned community of Saturnia Lakes. Various
commercial and civic uses are seen both east and west of the property on both sides
of Immokalee Road including Laurel Oaks Elementary School, Gulf Coast High School,
U.S. Post Office, Academy of Marital Arts, Dunkin Donuts to the east and Saint Monica’s
Episcopal Church, Eagle’s Nest Christian Academy, North Collier Fire District, Mobil filling
station, Straight From New York Bagels and Naples Pediatric Dentistry to the west.
The proposed 100,000 square feet of retail and office land uses on ±18.6 acres, or 5,376
sq. ft. per acre results in a significantly lower intensity than that permitted on similarly
sized commercial zoned parcels throughout Collier County. This lower intensity provides
an opportunity to provide commercial services to nearby residents without creating
compatibility concerns.
The development as proposed includes a 1.0 acre native vegetative buffer and ± 2 acre
water management lake to the rear of the property, providing substantial buffering and
distance from the commercial development to the nearest home in Saturnia Lakes. This
creates nearly a 350’ separation between the commercial development and the
adjacent corner of the subject property abutting Saturnia Lakes. Combined with the
approximate 130 feet of native planting area within Saturnia Lakes, these separations
combined will create a distance nearly 470’ between proposed commercial
developments and the nearest residential lot.
Immokalee Road adjacent to the north of the property is a 6-lane arterial roadway.
Logan Boulevard, a 2-lane roadway is directly west of the property. The intersection of
Logan Boulevard & Immokalee Road has been improved to a 4-lane condition.
The modest commercial square footage per acre, separation of, and use of native
3
vegetation and landscaping for buffering, and the significant separation between the
proposed commercial development and existing residential development, as well as
the existing development patterns surrounding the property contribute to the proposed
project being consistent and compatible with the neighboring properties.
Landscape buffering will be incorporated per Collier County Land Development Code
requirements throughout the project and the property will benefit from the native
vegetative buffer and water management lake as shown on the MCP, to address
compatibility with the surrounding developments. The ability to be serviced by County
water and sewer will also serve to minimize adverse impacts.
Building height will not exceed 35 feet and will be designed in the general character of
neighborhood style retail uses and therefore should be consistent with the general
architecture and reasonably expected massing for commercial development. Low
intensity commercial development will also ensure there is ample usable open space
within the project.
COMPLIANCE WITH LDC SECTION 10.02.08
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
This request for rezoning to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) is a
companion application to an application to amend the GMP, creating a commercial
sub-district and will be consistent with applicable elements of the GMP. For further
elaboration, please see the attached narrative regarding GMP consistency.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The project is located along a heavily travelled corridor with a mix of residential and
commercial uses. Most residents in the area already utilize the Immokalee Road
Corridor for retail services. While the surrounding area is predominantly residential, the
property is bordered on the north and west by county roads and vacant agriculturally
zoned lands to the south and east. The lands east and south are undeveloped and
zoned agriculture and to the southeast lies Saturnia Lakes, a GL developed residential
community. The scale and design of this project provides needed goods and services
to nearby residents while providing adequate separation and buffering to not adversely
impact adjacent development.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts.
The proposed sub-district provides a needed and compatible commercial land use in
an area that will serve to reduce travel times for nearby residents for goods and
4
services. The size and scope of the project as a ‘neighborhood center’ is
complimentary to the surrounding residential land uses and therefore does not
represent an isolated condition.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The project boundaries are appropriate for the proposed use.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
The need demonstrated as part of the GMP amendment is satisfied with the approval
of this proposed zoning district. This need is the result of development in the surrounding
area which created the demand for the proposed project.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
Using site specific development standards, including placement of the native
vegetation area, water management lakes and the creation of distance between the
physical development of the site and the nearest homes, living conditions in the nearby
areas will not be adversely affected.
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 site can be accessed via two main roadways for both construction purposes as well
as in the post-development condition, resulting in the broader distribution of traffic over
the network. While new trips will certainly be generated from the project, it can equally
be argued that reduced travel times for nearby residents will also be realized. The link
and segment specific impacts are more fully addressed in the attached TIS but this
project does not in itself create deficiencies on any adjacent roadway.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The project will be subject to approval of the stormwater management system as
required by the South Florida Water Management Department and as such, will not be
allowed to negatively impact adjacent properties with stormwater runoff.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
5
The project as proposed will not adversely impact light and air to adjacent areas.
Building heights are limited to 35 feet.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area.
Due to the distance and buffering from nearby residential areas, property values should
not be negatively affected.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Conversely, the project as proposed provides interconnections for adjacent properties
which may improve the development opportunities for adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
This project will fill a demonstrated need and therefore positively impact the public
welfare.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning.
The existing zoning permits agriculture and agricultural use in an increasingly suburban
pattern of development, making the existing zoning far too limiting.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood
or the county.
This change is in response to the need for additional commercial services in the area
and with the identified size limitations, ensures development at an appropriate scale.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
The location for this project is ideal to meet the current and proposed demand for
commercial services for the established neighborhoods in the immediate area.
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.
6
The site has been impacted over time with the construction and widening of both
Logan Blvd. N. and Immokalee Road, both of which required takings by Collier County.
Under the proposed zoning, the site alteration requirements will be significant but will
not result in detrimental effects to adjacent properties.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended.
No LOS deficiencies are projected because of this project.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
In concert with the support documentation provided as part of the GMP Amendment,
this project will serve a demonstrated need for existing and future residents in the area
and will positively impact the fabric of the community.
COMPLIANCE WITH LDC SECTION 10.02.13
a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
This Rezone is proposing a maximum of 100,000 square feet of retail and office land uses
on ±18.6 acres. By limiting the size to 100,000 square feet, or 5,376 sq. ft. per acre, the
overall intensity of this development is significantly lower than that permitted on similarly
sized commercial zoned or designation parcels throughout Collier County. The
proposed project is bordered on the North by Immokalee Road, a 6-lane arterial
roadway and on the West by Logan Boulevard, which has been improved at the
intersection with Immokalee Road to a 4-lane condition but tapers to 2-lanes as you
travel south. Across Logan Boulevard lies vacant land as well as Estates zoned
residential development. To the east of the subject property lies vacant Agricultural
land and approximately 800 feet east is the entrance to Saturnia Lakes, a residential
community. To the South of the subject property is an Agricultural operation inclusive of
a nursery, landscape business and associated uses. To the southeast is residential
development that is part of the Saturnia Lakes development which is the closest
residential development to the property.
7
b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or
other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and
maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation with the County Attorney.
The proposed project is under a single, unified ownership and promotes vehicular and
pedestrian interconnections where possible and practical, at no expense to the public.
c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the Future
Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
This is a companion item to an application to amend the GMPA to create a
commercial subdistrict in this location. Additional information supporting GMP
compliance is offered below.
d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design,
and buffering and screening requirements.
The Master Concept Plan has been included with this application that shows the
intended size, scale and location of development that is proposed for the site to
address the compatibility concerns relating to noise, lighting, buffering, etc. A key
factor in the proposed development is the placement of a native vegetative buffer
and water management lake to the rear of the property to provide substantial
buffering and distance for the commercial development to the nearest home in
Saturnia Lakes. As shown on the MCP, approximately 340 feet exists between the
commercial development and the southeast corner of the subject property. Of this
distance, ±125 feet will be comprised of a proposed native vegetation preserve which
consists of Pine Flatwoods with minimal exotic vegetation requiring removal.
Additionally, Saturnia Lakes has a native planted area of approximately 130 feet from
the common corner point to the nearest lot line. These factors combine to result in
approximately 470 feet from the proposed commercial development to the nearest
residential lot, with 250 feet or so of that being comprised of native plantings and
preserves.
e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development.
The project as proposed will meet or exceed the usable open space requirements
contained in the Land Development Code.
8
f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy
of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The application has provided traffic and utility demand information and has also agree
to provide a utility easement should one be necessary for utility expansion on the east
side of Logan Boulevard. There are no concurrency issues identified associated with this
project.
g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
This project is being placed within a newly created subdistrict and does not
contemplate expansion of commercial services to the adjacent properties. Should
those property owners wish to pursue commercial development they would have to file
an application to amend the GMP.
h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified
as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of
such regulations.
The proposed PUD regulations are designed to promote a high quality, community
based shopping center that will be viewed as an asset to the surrounding communities.
The location will serve to reduce vehicle miles travelled for residents seeking good and
services and has will provide a positive aesthetic statement at the corner of Logan and
Immokalee as shared with the residents at the NIM.
9
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GMP
The proposed CPUD development will allow for a mix of commercial uses. The proposed
language will permit retail, office, medical office, financial institutions and similar uses
that are permitted by right and/or conditional use within the C-3 and C-4 zoning districts.
The proposed limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial uses on parcels totaling
±18.6 acres provides for a lower intensity development to serve the surrounding
community, lessening compatibility concerns for the adjacent properties. The proposed
CPUD is consistent with the following key Growth Management Policies and Objectives:
OBJECTIVE 5:
In order to promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and
habitat forested species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of
land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element, the following
general land use policies shall be implemented upon the adoption of the Growth
Management Plan.
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).
Response: This Rezone is proposing a maximum of 100,000 square feet of retail and
office land uses on ±18.6 acres. By limiting the size to 100,000 square feet, or 5,376 sq. ft.
per acre, the overall intensity of this development is significantly lower than that
permitted on similarly sized commercial zoned or designation parcels throughout Collier
County. The proposed project is bordered on the North by Immokalee Road, a 6-lane
arterial roadway and on the West by Logan Boulevard, which has been improved at
the intersection with Immokalee Road to a 4-lane condition but tapers to 2-lanes as you
travel south. Across Logan Boulevard lies vacant land as well as Estates zoned
residential development. To the east of the subject property lies vacant Agricultural
land and approximately 800 feet east is the entrance to Saturnia Lakes, a residential
community. To the South of the subject property is an Agricultural operation inclusive of
a nursery, landscape business and associated uses. To the southeast is residential
development that is part of the Saturnia Lakes development which is the closest
residential development to the property.
A Master Concept Plan has been included with this application that shows the
intended size, scale and location of development that is proposed for the site to
address the compatibility concerns relating to noise, lighting, buffering, etc. A key
10
factor in the proposed development is the placement of a native vegetative buffer
and water management lake to the rear of the property to provide substantial
buffering and distance for the commercial development to the nearest home in
Saturnia Lakes. As shown on the MCP, a distance of approximately 340 feet exists
between the commercial development and the southeast corner of the subject
property. Of this distance, ±125 feet will be comprised of a proposed native vegetation
preserve which consists of Pine Flatwoods with minimal exotic vegetation requiring
removal. Additionally, Saturnia Lakes has a native planted area of approximately 130
feet from the common corner point to the nearest lot line. These factors combine to
result in a distance of approximately 470 feet from the proposed commercial
development to the nearest residential lot, with 250 feet or so of that being comprised
of native plantings and preserves.
OBJECTIVE 7:
In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The
Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character
of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development
and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Response: A part of the move toward implementation of smart growth policies includes
the placement of commercial and residential land uses to promote the reduction or
elimination of vehicular use where practical. Based on the market study provided, this
area which has a significant number of residential units in the 3-mile Primary Service
Area is underserved by the existing commercial developments both today and in the
foreseeable future. By locating new commercial land uses in near proximity to existing
homes, Collier County can reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT’s) for certain uses and
basic needs. Increased access and convenience of commercial goods is a sound
planning principal in the reduction of VMT’s and therefore a commensurate reduction
in greenhouse gases. The proposed land uses in this location will serve to promote
smart growth principals in support of Objective 7.
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.
Response: This Rezone incorporates a Master Concept Plan that shows connections on
collector or arterial roadways including Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard.
11
Additionally, the project is providing two interconnections to properties to the east and
south with the specific intent of potentially reducing the number of direct connections
to Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard in the future.
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.
Response: The MCP included with this application provides for access through the
project from Logan Boulevard to Immokalee Road via internal drives without creating a
frontage road style connection around the proposed development. Access is provided
over and through the project to enhance connectivity.
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments
is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element.
Response: Please see the above response for Policy 7.1 that demonstrated consistency
with this policy as well as Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. The project has
provided connection points to all adjacent properties where it is feasible to do so.
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.
Response: The proposed development is designed to meet the demand in the
marketplace for neighborhood style retail uses which will serve the nearby communities
and ultimately the adjacent properties should they develop with residential uses. This
center has been specifically designed to provide a very walkable environment with
features that provide visual and aesthetic interest. These elements will be explained in
more detail in the proposed CPUD by provided details on the planned sidewalk
connections internal to the project and the pedestrian and bicycle access points that
will connect to the existing sidewalks along both Immokalee Road and Logan
Boulevard in order to more fully demonstrate compliance with this Policy.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or
PUD to PUD Rezone
PETITION NO
PROJECT NAME
DATE PROCESSED
PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code
Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative
Code
PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F.
APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION
Name of Applicant(s): ___________________________________________________________
Address: _____________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______
Telephone: ___________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: ____________________
E-Mail Address:______________kevin.ratterree@glhomes.com_____________________________
Name of Agent: ________________________________________________________________
Firm: _________________________________________________________________________
Address: _____________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______
Telephone: __________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ____________________
E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________
Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that
you are in compliance with these regulations.
To be completed by staff
4/15/2015 Page 1 of 16
✔
Kevin Ratterree, Immokalee Road Associates, LLC
1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, #400 Sunrise FL 33323
954-753-1730 954-575-5240
Tim Hancock, AICP/ R. Bruce Anderson
Stantec / Cheffy Passidomo, P.A.
5801 Pelican Bay Blvd. #300 / 821 5th Ave South Naples FL
34108/34102
649-4040/261-9300 239-649-5716
tim.hancock@stantec.com / rbanderson@napleslaw.com
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION
Please complete the following information, if space is inadequate use additional sheets and attach
to the completed application packet.
a.If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in
common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage
of such interest:
Name and Address % of Ownership
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the
percentage of stock owned by each:
Name and Address % of Ownership
c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the
percentage of interest:
Name and Address % of Ownership
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the
general and/or limited partners:
Name and Address % of Ownership
4/15/2015 Page 2 of 16
Immokale Road Associates, LLC 100%
GL Commercial, LLC - Itzhak Ezratti, 100%
(directly or indirectly)
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation,
Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the
officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners:
Name and Address % of Ownership
Date of Contract:
f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or
officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust:
Name and Address
g. Date subject property acquired _______________
Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option: _________________________
Date option terminates: __________________, or
Anticipated closing date: _________________
h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to
the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility
of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form.
4/15/2015 Page 3 of 16
1/24/14 and 7/6/16
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
REZONE REQUEST
This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to
the ________________________________zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________
Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________
Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY INFORMATION
On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the
property covered by the application:
x If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a
separate legal description for property involved in each district;
x The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months,
maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and
x The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise
concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be
required.
Section/Township/Range: / /
Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________
Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________
Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________
Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________
Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C):
Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial
Mixed Use Other: ________________
4/15/2015 Page 4 of 16
A - Agriculture
CPUD
Vacant, Agriculture
Commercial
NA
29 48 26
see attached exhibit D
00195040001, 00195480001, 00194880000, 00195440009, 00195000009, 00196680606
1169 731
810,216 +/- 18.6
Southeast corner of Immokalee Road
and Logan Boulevard
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
N
S
E
W
If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal
description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application.
Section/Township/Range: / /
Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________
Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________
Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________
ASSOCIATIONS
Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition.
Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County
Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774.
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
4/15/2015 Page 5 of 16
RPUD/PUD DRI Residential
A - Agriculture Misc. Agriculture
A - Agriculture Misc. Agriculture
E - Estates Estates Residential
Saturnia Lakes HOA, Mrs. Nan Hoepfl, President
1310 Saturnia Grande Drive Naples FL 34119
Longshore Lakes Foundation, Inc., Ms. Sharon Murphy, GM
11399 Phoenix Way Naples FL 34119
Olde Cypress Master Assoc., Mr. Trevor Lutz, GM
3045 Olde Cove Way Naples FL 34119
Lantana at Olde Cypress HOA, LLC
2639 Professional Circle Naples FL 34119
CrWm w
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
www,colliergov.net
28OO NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
1239t.252-2400
Pre-Application Meeting Notes
Petition Type . Rezone T} PUD
Date and Time:
-5
Assigned Planner:Daniel James Smith
Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FPs):
Project lnformation
Pr#. P120160001089
Applicant:
Agent Name:Phone:
City: _ State: _ Zip: _Agent/Firm Address:
Property Owner:
Please provide the following, if applicable:
i, Total Acreage:
ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: _
iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage:
iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number:
v. lf there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the
type and number:
vi. lf the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/P[#:
Rroiect wams: Logan and lmmokolee Commerical Rezone
Property lD#' 1e488oooo 1e548ooo1 1s5o4oo1 1e544oooe Current Zoning: A
Project Address: City: _ State: _ zip: _
Crouuty
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
www.colliergov.net
28OO NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORTDA 34104
l2t9l2s2-24oo
Meeting Notes
LU,tA
\1<.3tq?/r^Ya\s. - ilVr^,aL,l" ir".-.
[:Ot/r'4,,
), n^r.. A .f r'l^1"U.oP.^^f
6r.\
\rr
*6x..r\.or, cl 11 J $eJd{st. 15./."* -,^1. €1.,'1-.d\" t Jh
F" "{lr\}r? ?ro"A loi.,[r.e - {.,"n"" P.e:.,,'.,-t i, s 1."q 'l A'.s ro,.oar).JElS i, n
RJ
@)
Zz-/)L^)ilr
.At-r--Fal-t,s L ff* ,4?ye
€=Eo
E
Co Countye-r
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/
PLANNING AND REGULATION
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OR WITHDRAWAL
CHECK ONE:E CoNTINUANCE E wtrxonnwlr
lf o conlinuonce is requesled, pleose indicole lenoth of lime: to:
-
OR I lndefinire
E.go: ! Plonning Commission ! Boord of County Commissioners
I. Dote of Scheduled Heoring: _
2. Appliconl/Proiect Nome:
-3. Applicotion/Cose number; _
4. Type of Applicorion (exomples: Rezoning, Conditionql Use or Vorionce) _
5. Reoson for Request: _
ANY ADDITIONAT LEGAT ADVERTISING FEES AND PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION FEES MUST BE
PAID PRIOR TO PUBTIC HEARING.
UNDER PENATTIES OF PERJURY, AND PURSUANT TO FTORIDA STATUTEs SECTION 92.525, I DECLARE
THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING REQUEST AND THAT THE FACTs STATED IN IT ARE TRUE.
Signature OfApplicant Or Authorized Agent Dale
Printed Nome:
-
E-moil oddress:
-
Address:
-
Phone number:
-
Fox number:
http://www.colliergov. neUhome/showdocument?id=20988
28OO NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(2391 2s2-2400 FAX (239) 252-53s8
www.collierqov. net
28) Stewardship Receiving Area Petition (SRA): $7000.00 per SRA plus $25.00 per acre for. Stewardship
Sending Area Petition (SSA): $9,500.00, Stewardship Receiving Altemative Deviation Design (SRDD)
$500.00. SRA Amendments deemed to be minor in nature, that is requiring minor strike thru and
underline text amendments ofno more than l0 different lines oftext changes in the Sfu{ will be capped
at $10.000.00.
29) After-the-Fact Zoningl Land Use
0)d Use Petition Continuances Including Appeal ofan Administrative Decision and Appeal to Bo
Zoning Appeals
a. Requested after petition has been advertised $500,00
b. Requested at the meeting $750.00
additional uired 1n tion to continuance
3l) PUD and SRA Monitoring (one-time charge at time ofbuilding permit pick-up)
a. $100.00 per dwelling unit for residential construction within a PUD and SRA ($3,000.00 maximum
fee per building permit application)
c. $0.12 per square foot for non-residential construction within a PUD and SRA (S3,000.00 maximum fee
per building permit application)
32) Any legal adve(ising required during any GMD-P&R activity or approval process will be charged in addition
to stated fees, at actual costs. GMD-P&R reserves the right to charge an estimated amount with the initially
required project fees, and will reconcile and adjust such charges against actual legal advertising recording
billings at thc completion of the project.
33) Mixcd Usc Proiect (MUP) $2.500,00
*, o*,'J;"i::,:T''Ui-#^.S't:fi'i:[Ufl) -, 6 nnQ A
o
Proj J-
Is the project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and,/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding
properties? (coN, sT, PLrD, RLSA, [{FMU, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08;4.08.00) Not in CV Library
,\r/2. lubmit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate theJsubject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation inventory
identirying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.l. Application Contents #24).
FLUCFCS Overlay -P627
(1. Qearly identifo the location ofall preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.A.2).
-Preserve
Label- P546
,./-(4. |rovide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage ofnative vegetation to be retained, the max.
Vamount and ratios permifted to be created on-site or mitigated off-site. Exclude vegetation located within utiliry
and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). Preserve
Calculation - P547 l5''J, "e 1- "r'^c^+
, -5:>Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width reouirements Der LDC 1.05.07.H.1.b. Presene\--lWidth-p603,'Q',rfu* - {*-c " pr.,-.,^.. s ..ct \l rr,. \.., )t,.r,-,.i3.J,
//-_
( 6. /.etained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata,\-." be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site
preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) Preserve Selection- P550
(7. lrinciple structures shall be located a minimum of25'from the boundary ofthe preserve boundary. No accessoryJstructures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be
permitted within l0' ofthe boundary unless it can be shown that it will not aIIect the integrity ofthe preserve (i.e.
stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross-sections for each preserve boundary identifoing all
site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3;6.01.02.C.) Preserve Setback -New
8. Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required, when so warranted. (LDC 10.02.02.4.2.0
Listed Species - P522
,,.-
9. )Provide Environmental Data identifing author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off-site
-
preserres. seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm
fields or golfcourse, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifoing any site contamination.
(LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required P 522
D Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2)
aster Plan Contents-P626
shall include Preserve Tract section. When listing preserve uses, the following is suggested:11.
A. Princ ipal Use: Preserve; B. Accessory Uses: All other uses (list as applicable or refer to the LDC)
{ot in CV Library
_.nt(n"hUO Documenr shall identifo any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that
- witl be preserved on the site. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2.) Unique Features- P628
Example: A management plan for the entire project shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements and
procejures ofthe tOC toi li.t"a species including but not limited to Black Bear, Gopher Tortoise and listed birds.
re management plan shall be submitted prior to development ofthe first phase ofthe project.
13. Provide information for GIS?
Additional Comments:
10. For sites or oortions ofsites cleared ofnative vegetation or in aqricultural operation, provide documentation that
the parcel(s) were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone lirnitation pursuant
to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s)
are in compliance with the l0 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native
vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and
r 0.02.06.
entily on a current aerial the acreage, Iocation and communi$r rypes of all upland and wetland habitats on the
project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification Syslem (FLUCFCS). and provide
a legend for each ofthe FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale
provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. Include the
above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. [n a separate report,
demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in
this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural
flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties.
12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA,
R-FMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans.
13. Where off-site preservation ofnative vegetation is proposed in lieu ofon-site, demonstrate that the criteria in
section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type
ofdonation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisry the requirement. lnclude on the SDP or
final plat construction plans, a location map(s) and property identification number(s) ofthe off-site parcel(s) if
off-site donation of Iand is to occur.
14. Provide the results ofany Environmental Assessments and/or Audits ofthe properly, along with a narrative ofthe
measures needed to remediate ifrequired by FDEP.
(T-),ovia" justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1
-
( I I ), if requested.
I 5. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that
occupy farm fields (crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas), golfcourses, landfill orjunkyards
or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or
processed or where haardous wasles in excess of220 pounds per month or I l0 gallons at any point in time
were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional
with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine
pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) FS 3000, in areas suspected ofbeing used for mixing and at discharge point ofwater
management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points ofcontamination are obvious. Include a
background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient ofthe potentially contaminated
site. Soil sampling should occurjust below the root zone, about 6 to l2 inches below ground surface or as
otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site
Assessment. lnclude in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant
levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are
over these levels. Ifthis analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be
submitted. The Counry shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP
standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been
submitted.
16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its
intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level.
a;ntiry on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the
Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP
or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction
plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identif
on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores ofat least
0.65 WRAP or 0.7 LJMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high qualitv
wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order
approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be
reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation.
4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres ofwetlands shall provide an analysis of
potential water quality impacts ofthe project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post
development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared
with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre-deyelopment conditions. The analysis shall
be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate
no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario.
5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been
met.
f, nvironmental Data Checklist
The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00
O AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED TIIE ENVIRONMENTAI DATA REPORT? Preparation of
Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with
academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management.
Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one ofthe biological sciences with
at least two years ofecological or biological professional experience in the State ofFlorida.
Where native vegetation is retained on site, provide a topographic map to a half foot and, where possible, provide
elevations within each ofthe FLUCFCS Codes identified on site. For SDP or final plat construction plans,
include this information on the site plans.
ovide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological
communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or
recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the
environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occulrence is low, as determined by the
FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the
likelihood oflisted species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager
or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and IJSFWS.
Additionat survey time may be required if listed species are discovered
o
Y
1f+J
+a+l-
d
\
8 Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03
lWildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed
species are utilizing ihe site or where wilalifi haUitat management and monitoring plans are required by the
fFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed
rf""i"r u"a their habitats. Iientifu the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the
location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay
for the site. Wlldlife habitat munag"-eni plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans' Bald
eagle management plans are reqriired foi sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of
wh"ich shall-be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans'
o
C1])roviae tne EIS fee if PUD or cU.
\
19. Identi! any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the project area
and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive
WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Include the location of the Wellfield Risk
Management Special Treatrnent Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans. For land use
applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the
project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified.
20. Demonstrate that the design ofthe proposed stormwater management system and analysis ofwater quality and
quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements ofthe Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00.
21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC-
ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14.
22. For multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is
consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection PIan for site specific requirements ofthe Manatee
Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02.
23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the
applicable Objectives and Policies ofthe Conservation and Coastal Management Element ofthe GMP.
24. The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's
compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.4.3 f)
The following to be determined at preapplication meeting:
(Choose those that apply)
Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues.
Explain how project is consistent with each ofthe applicable objectives and policies in the CCME ofthe
how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requircment in the CCME and
lndicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects ofthe impact to their functions and how the project's design
mpensates for wetland impacts.
dicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed
as mitigation for impacts to listed species.
25.D zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable
Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EI S) document,
prior to public hearings and after all applicable staffreviews are complete. Copies ofthe EIS shall be provided to
the Counry Manager or designee prior to public hearings.
26. Is EAC Review (by CCPC) required?
27. Additional Comments
28. Stipulations for approval (Conditions)
18. Where applicable, provide evidence ofthe issuance ofall applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for
proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of
Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January I 3, 2005.
a-
C-auuty
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
www.colliergov.net
w
28OO NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPIES, FLORTDA 34104
123912s2-24OO
Pre-Application Meeting Sign-ln Sheet
PL #:
Collier County Contact lnformation:
e euu,b1
^
t fDC 252'x,"t L/ Corg7 ll rtvt Qo al qo( ''PeT
Name Review Discipline Phone Email
{ David Anthony Environmental Review 2s2-2497 davidanthony@colliergov.net
! Summer Araque Environmental Review 252 6290 summerbrownaraque@colliergov.net
[- steve Baluch 252-2367Transportation Planning StephenBaluch@colliergov.net
. Mark Burtchin ROW Permitting 252-5165 markburtchin @colliergov.net
- George Cascio utility Billing georgecascio@colliergov.net
Heidi Ashton Cickox.Managing Asst. County Attorney heidiashton@colliergov.net
f Dale Fey North Collier Fire Safety dalefey@colliergov.net
- Eric Fey, P.E Utility Plan Review 2s2-2434 ericfey@colliergov.net
- Paula Fleishman lmpact Fee Administration 252-2924 paulafleishman@colliergov.net
- Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michaelgibbons@colliergov.net
I Nancy Gundlach, AlcP, PLA Zoning Services 2s2-2484 nancygundlach@colliergov.net
[ ] Shar Hingson East Naples Fire District 687-5650 shingson@ccfco.org
L I John Houldsworth Engineering Services johnhouldsworth@colliergov.net
! todi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodihughes@colliergov.net
! Alicia Humphries Right-Of-Way Permitting 2s2-2326 aliciahumphries@colliergov.net
lr Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 2s2-2387 marciakendall@colliergov.net
252-2975 stevelen berge r@colliergov. netf Stephen Lenberger Environmental Review
paulomartins@colliergov.netPaulo Martins Utilities 252-428s
252-7348 Thomasmastroberto@colliergov.netGreater Naples Fire SafetyI Thomas Mastroberto
252-29t7 jackmckenna@colliergov.netEnBineering ServicesI Jack McKenna, P.E
matthewmclean @colliergov. n etPrincipal Project ManagerI Matt Mclean, P.E
gilbertmoncivaiz@colliergov. netUtility lmpact Fees-l Gilbert Moncivaiz
michelemosca@colliergov.net252 2466lmpact Fee AdministrationI Michele Mosca, AlcP
annismoxam@colliergov.net252-5519AddressingI Annis Moxam
mariamocheltree@colliergov.net252-237sG rap h icsll Mariam ocheltree
252 5859 brandyotero@colliergov.netTransitl l Brandy otero
252-2370 billpancake@colliergov.netNorth Collier Fire SafetyE Bill Pancake
252-6231 brandipollard@collierSov.netUtility lmpact feesI Brandi Pollard
fredreischl@colliergov.net252-42\7Zoning ServicesLl Fred Reischl, AICP
brettrosenblu m@colliergov.net252-2905Stormwater Plan ReviewBrett Rosenblum, P.E
michaelsawyer@colliergov.net252-2926Transportation PlanningerX Michael sa
U(D @ee-V--s a9>- 2)ctQ T**,0 t^t<"l 9 Q Lulhec q"a,
NLT
252-5543
252-8713
2s2-s7 s7
252-8279
252-4275
COTTIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
www.colliergov.net
Additional Attendee Contact lnformation:
28OO NORTH HORSESHOE ORIVE
NAPLES, FtORtDA 34104
(239) 252-2t()0
(i corby schmidt, atcr Comprehensive Planning 252 2944 corbyschmidt@colliergov.net
th cnri, s.ot,, atce Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscott@collierBov.net
!Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252 8523 petershawinsky@colliergov. net
A Daniel Smith, AICP Zoning Services 252-4312 danielsmith@colliergov.net
.l Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 2s2-8400 scottstone@colliergov.net
! Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 markstrain@colliergov.net
I Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252 2415 marktempleton @colliergov.net
Carolina Valera Comprehensive Planning 252-8498 carolinavalera@colliergov.net
Kris VanLengen Utility Planning 2s2-s366 krisvanlengen @colliergov.net
I lon Walsh Building Review 252-2962 jonathanwalsh @colliergov.net
h] David weeks, AlcP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 davidweeks@colliergov.net
I I Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirstenwilkie@col liergov.net
!Christine Willoughby Planning and Zoning ChristineWilloughby@colliergov.net
Name Representing Phone Email
?t, o ct, l-l,,u2rr.zr- \(Vcrr., (hq,i&o*r>b5?t/q 4 Z- lb,i.aft zr..'-n,t ?,t*,,,th-; I
b+t-w,7m lmc*t -fua *n./-.,,cat eilnL.a
Ml,k ft,ec-n)Lt to*t a o,zc r rn- 61 r/,23. ttj-tl rrt/.. ?rq$^tP f nlrua n72,
lTnsh?Li@++4,nltr 22q-44 A -f,.L.Ph;L#s)<L-/:
(isnt&.'evJtre cr(l h,r-l$s W#1 vs*t"ai*i6+.8 &hd;Il ?r-rr^{huY.,bl4_lo4o i.Ll. n,n,-e ^h;L ,.*
J IJ
d. (o rc---.
aer2l
. rlfl
252-57 48
c,fiff*Cou*rxy
28OO NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
123912s2-2400 FAX (239l. 2s2-s724
AD9RESSING CHEC(tIST
Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division
at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Eg40-nruslbe-sLg!9dly
Addressino oersonnel Drior to pre-apDl ication meetino. rrlease allow 3 davs for oroce$sino.
Not all items will apply to every project. ltems in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE
PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section.
PETITION TYPE (lndicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petitian type)
SDP (Site Development Plan)
SDPA (SDP Amendment)
SDPI (lnsubstantial Change to SDP)
SIP (Site lmprovement Plan)
SlPl (lnsubstantial Change to SIP)
SNR (Street Name Change)
SNC (Street Name Change - Unplatted)
TDR (Transfer of Development Rights)
VA (Variance)
VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit)
VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit)
OTHER GIVPA Growth lvanaoement Planninq Anu
trtrtrTtr
DItr!InE
f,trnnntr
D
DT
Dtrn
BL (Blasting Permit)
BD (Boat Dock Extension)
Carnival/Circus Permit
CU (Conditional Use)
EXP (Excavation Permit)
FP (Final Plat
LLA (Lot Line Adjustment)
PNC (Prolect Name Change)
PPL (Plans & Plat Review)
PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat)
PUD Rezone
RZ (Standard Rezone)+
LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached)
See Attached :a 23 T ;t t- 26
FOLIO (Property lD) NUMBER(S) oT above (attach to, orassoclale with, legal description if more than one)
194880000, 1 95480001 , 1 9504000'l , 195440009
STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned)
8245 &8251 Logan Blvd. N. and 7550 lmmokalee Rd.
. LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of projecusite in relation to nearest public road right-
of-way
. SURVEY(copy - needed only for unplatted properties)
CURRENT PROJECI NAME (if applicable)
PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable)
Logan - lmmokalee Commercial
PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable)
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUI\4BER (for existing projects/sites only)
SDP - orAR or PL#
COLTIER COUNTY GOVERNM ENT
6ROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
!vr41w-cdlr ryp!-,I!!
&*:.ry^
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
www.collie rgov.net
28OO NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
lz39l 2s2-240o F AX (2191 2s|-s7 24
Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if applicationi
lndicate whether proposed or existing)
Please Return Approved Checklist By:Emall Fax n Personally picked up
Applicant Name: Lisa Colburn
Phone: 239-649-4040 Email/Fax: lisa. colbu rn @sta ntec.co m
Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name
approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division.
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
FolioNumber 0019544C009
FolioNumber 001950 C001.
Folio Number C 0 i 94 8I C Cfl 0
Folio Number
Folio Number
Folio Number
001954800 1
Approved by:ut;lu
-Date:
5/10/2016
IF OLDER THAN 5 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE
UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTEI}
Updated by: Date:-
Parcel No, 00195440009 Site Adr.
Name / Address
Collier County Property Appraiser
Property Summary
Page I oi l
zip 33323
Range
26
Acres :EllIEeled
Millage Rates O "calculations
School Othor Total
5.48 6.1927 LL.6727
IMMOKAIEE ROAD ASSOC LtC
15OO SAWGRASS CORPORATE PKWY
* 400
City SUNRISE
Map No.
3B28
Strap No.
000100 016 3828
Section
28
State FL
Township
48 5
Legal 28 48 26WL/2 OF SE1/4 Or NWl/4 OF NW1/4 5 AC OR 1261 PG 1.231
Millaqe Area O 35
Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER
Use Code O 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICUTTURAL
Latest Sales History
(Not all Sal€3 are listed due to Conrld"ntiality)
Date Book-Page Amount
ot/241l4 5003-1836 $ 2,500,000
0,.106112 475s-1442 $ o
o4lo3/87 L26L-L23L $ 225,000
07/0L/72 464-t82 $ 0
2015 Certified Tax Roll
(Subject to Change)
Land Value $ 600,000
1+1 Improved Value $ 0
(=) Market Value $ 600,000
(=) Assessed Value $ 600,000
1=1 School Taxable Value $ 600,000
(=) Taxable Value $ 600,000
lf a,l ValueJ Jhown above equal 0 this prrcel was creat€d afte. th€ Final
Tax Roll
http://www.collierappraiser.cotn/Main Search./Recordl)ctail.html?F olio ID: I 95440009 5t9t2016
City SUNRISE
Legal
Strap No.
000100 005 3828
State FL
Township
4S
Page 1 of 1
zip 33323
Acres "Estimated
3.6 6
Collier County Property Appraiser
Property Summary
Parcel No. 00195040001 site Adr.
Name / Address IMMOKALEE ROAD ASSOC LLC
1600 SAWGRASS CORPORATE PKWY
# 400
Map No.
3828
Section
28
Range
26
28 48 26 Er/z OF NW1/4 OF NW:./4 OF NWl/4 LESS N 1s0FT FOR R/\ /, IESS THOSE
PORTIONS DESC IN OROER OF TAKING FROM OR 3888 PG 1667 FOR R/W.
Millage Area O 36
Sub.l€ondo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER
Use Code O 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL
Latest Sales History
(Not all Saler are listed due lo Confide8liality)
Date Book-Page Amount
oLl24lL4 s003-r836 $ 2,500.000
0tl06lL2 4755-1442 $ 0
tol2ol97 2356-1210 $ 0
o4/0L186 1189-1476 $ 105,000
o4l0ll8]- 9L2-72 $ 0
08101160 69-544 $ 10,200
Millaqe Rates e *Calculations
School Other Total
5.48 6.L927 LL.6727
2015 Certified Tax Roll
(Subje.t to Change)
Land Value g 439,200
(+) Improved Value $ 0
(=) Market Value $439,200
(=) Assessed Value $ 439,200
(=) School Taxable Value $ 439,200
(=) Taxable Value 9439,200
If all Value5 5hown above equal 0 this par(€l was <reated atte. th. Final
Tax Ro!l
hup://www.collieraDpraiscr.com/Main Searoh./RecordDetail.html?FoliolD= 195040001 5t9t2016
Page I ol I
Collier County Property Appraiser
Property Aerial
Parcel No. 00195040001 Site Adr.
Open a GIS Window with More Features.
-
t-Fg
I
I
E
http://www.collierappraiser.coln/Main_SealclVRecordDctail.htnr l'iF oliolD:1 95040001 51912016
I
f]
riIll'+- :
t. it-\ r-r,r. ."
.r..
I
afi
r
O - 34tt
;
I
II
I
I
z
E
:E
i!
g
I
I
H
".
n'
I
!i
r
!
:i
I
a
I
I I
)
Page I of I
Collier County Property Appraiser
Property Summary
Parcel No. 00195480001 Site Adr.
Name / Address IMMOKALEE ROAD ASSOC LLC
1600 SAWGRASS CORPORATE PKWY
#4
Map No.
3 B28
City SUNRISE
Legal
Strap No.
000100 017 3B28
Acres :Egllleled
,.74
Section
28
Stat€ FL
Township
48
zip 33323
Range
26
28 48 26WLlz OF NEl/4 OF NWr./4 OF NWl/4 LESS N 150FT tOR R/W, LESS THOSE
PORIONS DESC rN ORDER OF TAKTNG FROM OR 3888 PG 1667 FOR R/W.
Millaqe Area O 36
Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER
Use Code ID 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL
Latest Sales History
iNol all Sales are listed due to Confid.ntialily,
Date Book-Page Amount
orl24lt4 s003-1836 $ 2,s00,000
0L/o6/L2 4755-L442 $ 0
04101/87 1261-1231 $ 22s,000
07/or/72 464-L82 $ 0
Millaoe Rates e 'Calculations
School Other Total
5.48 6.L927 LL.6727
2015 Certified Tax Roll
{Sub.ie.r to Chan96)
Land Value $ 448,800
(+) lmproved Value $ 0
(=) Market Value $ 448,800
(=) Assessed Value $ 448,800
(=) School Taxable Value $ 448,800
1=1 Taxable Value g 448,800
If all Values shox/n above equal 0 this parcel was areated atter the Final
Tax Roll
http://www.oollierappraiser.com/Main Search/ReooldDetail.html?FoliolD= I95480001 5t912016
Collier County Property Appraiser
Property Summary
State FL
Township
48
Page I ol 1
Zip 33323
Acres'Estimated
Parcel No, 00194880000 Site Adr.
Name,/ Address IMMOKATEE ROAD ASSOC tLC
1600 SAWGRASS CORPORATE PKWY
#4
City SUNRISE
Map No.
3 828
Strap No.
000100 003 3B28
Section
28
Range
26 5
Legal 28 48 26 ELl2 OF SWLI4 OF Nw1/4 OF Nw1/4 5 AC OR 1189 PG 2052
Millage Area O 36
Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER
Use Code O 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICUTTURAL
Latest Sales History
(Not all Sa16r ar€ listsd due tg Conridsntiality)
Date Book-Page Amount
oL/241L4 5003-1836 $ 2,500,000
otlo6ll2 47s5-L442 $ 0
04103186 1189-2052 $ 30,000
L2/0L178 788-435 $0
07101164 L72-598 $ s00
Millage Rat€s O iCalculations
School other Total
5.48 6.L927 1L.6727
2015 Certified Tax Roll
(Subjict to Change)
Land Value $ 600,000
(+) lmproved Value $ 0
(=) Market Value S 600,000
(=) Assessed Value $ 600,000
1=1 School Taxable Value $ 500,000
(=) Taxable Value $ 6(X),000
lf ail Val.res aiown abov€ equal 0 th:t parcel war rreated after the Final
Tax Roll
http://www.collierapnraiser.comlMain Search/RecordDetail. htrnl?FoliolD= 1948 80000 519t20t6
Page I ol 1
Collier County Property Appraiser
Property Aerial
Parcel No. 00194880000 Site Adr.
Open a GIS Window with More Features.
I
htlp://www.collierappraiser.coln/Main Search/RecordDetail.html?FoliolD: l94ttti0000 59t2016
List of Subject Parcels
Parcel ID STR Address Ownership
00195040001 28-48-26 N/A Immokalee Road Associates LLC
00195480001 28-48-26 N/A Immokalee Road Associates LLC
00194880000 28-48-26 N/A Immokalee Road Associates LLC
00195440009 28-48-26 N/A Immokalee Road Associates LLC
00195000009 28-48-26 N/A Immokalee Road Associates LLC
00196680606 25-48-26 N/A Immokalee Road Associates LLC
Logan BLVD NImmokalee RD
John Michael RD439
4159 E14159 E3
6245 E3
241
4119 E1
740
6215 E3
4119 E1
4289 E3
4119 E1
Stantec Consulting Serv ices Inc.6900 Professional Parkway EastSarasota, FL 3 4240tel 941.9 07.690 0fax 941 .907.6911
Logan Blvd/Immokalee Rd Comme rcial Infil l Subdis tric t
FLUCCS MapOctober 2016
0 100 200
Feet
($$¯\\US1227-F01\U:\215613260\gis\mxd\LoganImmok_FLUCCS_20161013_v06_106492.gdb.mxd Revised: 2016-10-13 By: esturmDisclaimer: Stante c assumes no respo nsibility for datasupplied in elec tronic form at. The recipie nt acceptsfull responsibility for verifying the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its o fficers, employees, consultants andagents, fro m any and all c laims arising in any w ayfrom the content or prov isio n of the data.
Project Boundary
FLUCCS Code, Description
241, Tree Nursery
4119 E1, Pine Flatwoods Disturbed (0-24% Exotics)
4159 E1, Pine Disturbed (0 - 24%Exotics)
4159 E3, Pine Disturbed (50 - 75%Exotics)
4289 E3, Cabbage Palm Disturbed (50- 75% Exotics)
439, Mixed Exotic Hardwood
6215 E3, Cypress Dis turbed an dDrained (50 - 75% Exotic)
6245 E3, Cypress/Pine/Cabbge PalmDisturbed and Drained (50 - 75%Exotics)
740, Disturbed Lan d
Prepared by:E.E.S. 10 /13/16
L E G E N D
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS
FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST
APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION
Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______
Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________
E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________
Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________
City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Section/Township/Range: / /
Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________
Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________
Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________
TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED
Check applicable system:
a. County Utility System
b. City Utility System
c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________
d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________
e. Septic System
TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED
Check applicable system:
a. County Utility System
b. City Utility System
c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________
d. Private System (Well)
Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________
Peak and Average Daily Demands:
A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________
B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________
If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date
service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________
4/15/2015 Page 8 of 16
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of
sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of
affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil
involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries
of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to
dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier
County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in
accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also
include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be
paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If
applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements
for serving the water and sewer systems.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for
at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any
provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to
serve the project shall be provided.
4/15/2015 Page 9 of 16
Project No. 13GLH2170
LOGAN BOULEVARD/ IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT
Revised August 2017
Prepared For:
Immokalee Road Associates LLC.
1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400
Sunrise, Florida 33323
(954) 753-1730
Prepared By:
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
(239) 274-0067
Passarella & Associates, Inc. 1 of 1
#13GLH2170 Revised 08/03/17
INTRODUCTION
The following information and documents are provided in support of a Commercial Planned
Development (CPD) application for the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill
Subdistrict (Project). The information is being provided in accordance with the Collier County
Environmental Data submittal requirements outlined in Chapter 03.08.00 of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
The 19± acre Project site is located in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County. More specifically, it is found at the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee
Road and Logan Boulevard and is located approximately 1.4 miles east of Interstate 75. The
property is bound by Immokalee Road to the north, Logan Boulevard and a landscaping nursery
to the west, and a landscaping nursery to the east and south. Saturnia Lakes residential
development is located to the southeast of the Project site. The Project site is comprised
primarily of forested uplands that have been disturbed by the invasion of varying levels of exotic
vegetation.
The proposed CPD would allow for the commercial development of 100,000 square feet of
commercial retail, office, and restaurant use as well as the construction of a modified stormwater
management system.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are provided as part of this CPD application:
Exhibit 1. Environmental Data Preparer’s Resume
Exhibit 2. Project Location Map
Exhibit 3. Project Location with Land Use Designations
Exhibit 4. Aerial with Boundary
Exhibit 5. Aerial with FLUCFCS Map
Exhibit 6. FLUCFCS Descriptions
Exhibit 7. Topographic Map
Exhibit 8. Soils Map
Exhibit 9. Native Vegetation Map
Exhibit 10. Aerial with Conceptual Site Plan and Upland Preserve Area Map
Exhibit 11. Listed Species Survey Report
Exhibit 12. Native Vegetation Preserve and Selection Summary
Exhibit 13. Conservation and Coastal Management Element Consistency Summary
EXHIBIT 1
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA PREPARER’S RESUME
Shane Johnson
Senior Ecologist
Offices in Florida and South Carolina
13620 Metropolis Avenue • Suite 200 • Ft. Myers, FL 33912 | 505 Belle Hall Parkway • Suite 102 • Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 www.passarella.net
Senior Ecologist for Passarella & Associates, Inc., an ecological consulting firm providing environmental and
ecological services. Services include state, federal, and local permitting; agency negotiations; presentations for
planning, zoning, and board of county commissioner hearings; environmental impact assessments; ecological
assessments; listed species surveys, permitting and relocation; state and federal wetland jurisdictionals; wetland
mitigation assessments, design, permitting and construction observations; wetland mitigation banking management,
design, permitting and construction observations; and environmental project management.
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE
AVIATION
Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County
Exotic vegetation treatment observations and oversight
within the airport’s 500± acres of on-site wetland mitigation
lands.
Marco Island Executive Airport, Collier County
Mangrove trimming observations and exotic vegetation
treatment observations and wetland monitoring within the
airport’s 323± off-site wetland mitigation lands.
Immokalee Regional Airpark, Collier County
Vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, wetland
jurisdictional determination, wetland mitigation assessment,
state and federal permitting, Collier County Environmental
Impact Statement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7
Consultation, and presented in front of the Collier County
Environmental Advisory Committee for the 1,500± acre
airport.
Everglades Airpark, Collier County
Vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, wetland
jurisdictional determination, wetland mitigation assessment,
wetland mitigation design, state and federal permitting, for
the 45± acre airport.
INSTITUTIONAL
Collier County Public Schools Site G, Collier County
Wetland jurisdictional determinations, listed species surveys,
state permitting, and consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for the 18± acre school facility.
Collier County Public Schools Site L, Collier County
State and federal permitting, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Section 7 Consultation, Collier County Environmental Impact
Statement, wetland jurisdictional determination, wetland
mitigation assessment, and wetland mitigation design for the
34± acre school facility.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Winding Cypress, Collier County
Vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, wetland
jurisdictional determination, wetland mitigation assessment,
state and federal permitting, Collier County Environmental
Assessment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7
Consultation, and Collier County Planning Commission
presentation for the 946± acre project.
Golf Club of the Everglades, Collier County
Vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, wetland
jurisdictional determination, wetland mitigation assessment,
state and federal permitting, Collier County Environmental
Assessment, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7
Consultation for the 505± acre project.
The Preserve at Corkscrew, Lee County
Vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, wetland
mitigation assessment, state and federal permitting, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Section 7 Consultation, and Lee County
Hearing Examiner presentation for the 511± acre project.
Ebbtide, Lee County
Listed species survey, heritage tree survey, Lee County
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning, and Lee
County Hearing Examiner presentation for the 76± acre
project.
Corkscrew Shores, Lee County
Vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, wetland
jurisdictional determination, wetland mitigation assessment,
wetland mitigation design, state and federal permitting,
county zoning review, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Section 7 Consultation for the 722± acre project.
Lakewood National, Manatee County
State and federal permitting, county zoning review,
vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, wetland
jurisdictional determination, wetland mitigation assessment,
and wetland mitigation design for the 1,390± acre project.
Shane Johnson
Senior Ecologist
2 | Page
Portico, Lee County
State permitting, wetland jurisdictional determinations, and
listed species surveys for the 589± acre project.
Bethany Place, Lee County
Listed species survey, state permitting, County Development
Order resubmittal, and Lee County Hearing Examiner
presentation for the 79± acre project.
Peace River Island, Charlotte County
State and federal permitting, wetland mitigation assessment,
and wetland mitigation design for the 41± acre residential
project.
San Marino, Collier County
State and federal permitting, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Section 7 Consultation, Collier County Environmental
Assessment, wetland jurisdictional determination, wetland
mitigation assessment, and wetland mitigation design, and
Collier County Planning Commission presentation for the
140± acre residential development.
Lucaya, Lee County
State permitting, mangrove trimming observations, and
wetland mitigation monitoring for the 99± acre residential
development.
Waterside, Charlotte County
Vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, wetland
jurisdictional determination, wetland mitigation assessment,
state and federal permitting, county zoning review, and
Charlotte County Planning and Zoning Commission
presentation for the 475± acre project.
Villages at Homestead, Lee County
Vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, wetland
mitigation assessment, wetland mitigation design, state and
federal permitting, county zoning review, and Lee County
Hearing Examiner presentation for the 156± acre project.
ROAD PROJECTS
Bonita Beach Road Phase 2
State and federal permitting, vegetation mapping, listed
species survey, wetland delineation, and mitigation
assessment for the 19± acre road project.
Bonita Beach Road Sections 4 and 5
State and federal permitting, vegetation mapping, and listed
species survey for the 41± acre road project.
Burnt Store Road Widening
State and federal permitting, vegetation mapping, listed
species surveys, and wetland mitigation assessment for the
171± acre road project.
WETLAND MITIGATION BANKS
Bullfrog Bay Mitigation Bank, Polk County
State permitting, wetland mitigation assessment, wetland
mitigation design, and mitigation monitoring for the 426±
acre project.
EXPERIENCE
Senior Ecologist
Passarella & Associates, Inc. (May 2004 - Present)
Shorebird Technician
Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation/U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (February 2003 – July 2003)
Research Assistant
Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois
University Carbondale (June 1996 – July 1996)
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Zoology 1999
Minor: Chemistry
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois
CERTIFICATIONS
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Florida Association of Environmental Professionals
Calusa Herpetological Society
President (2009 – 2012)
Society of Wetland Scientists
Southeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile
Conservation
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
§¨¦75
;3EXIT111
IMMOK ALE E RDIMMOKALEE RD
LIVINGSTON RDLIVINGSTON RDVAND ER BILT BEA CH RDVANDERBILT BEA CH RD
LOGAN BLVD NLOGAN BLVD NOAKES BLVDOAKES BLVDCOLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)AIRPORT PULLING RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NSS
TT
RR
AA
NN
DDBBLLVVDDPIPE R B LVDPIPER B LVD
AARRBBOO RR BBLLVVDD MASSEY STMASSEY STNNOORRTTHHBBRROOOOKKEEDDRRQUARRY DRQUARRY DRGOLDEN GATE BLVD WGOLDEN GATE BLVD W
OORRAANNGGEE BBLLOOSSSSOOMM DDRR BBUU RR NN HH AA MM RR DD
THE LANETHE LANEKRAPE RDKRAPE RD31ST ST NW31ST ST NW29TH ST NW29TH ST NW25TH ST NW25TH ST NW23RD ST NW23RD ST NW27TH ST NW27TH ST NW1S T AVE S W1ST AVE S W
5T H AVE N W5TH AV E N W
1S T AVE N W1ST AVE N W
7T H AV E N W7TH AV E N W
3RD AVE SW3RD AVE S W
3RD AVE N W3RD AVE N W
D A N I EL S RDDANIELS RD
J A ND C BLVDJ A ND C BLVD
BUR OAK S LNBUR OAK S LN
HHIIGGHHCCRROOFF TT DD RR
WILDWOOD BLVDWILDWOOD BLVDIISS LL AA NN DDWW AALLKK CCII RR
H UN TE R S R DHUNTERS R D
WOLF E RDWOLFE RD
MENT OR D RMENTOR D R
CCYYPPRREESSSS
WW
AAYYEERICHARDS STRICHARDS STTEA K WOO D DRTEAK WOO D DR
TT II BB UU RROO NN BBLLVVDDEEEE RRIIEE DD RR
TT RR EE EE LL IINN EEDDRRNN OO TT TTIINNGGHHAAMM DDRR
HIDD EN O AKS LNHIDDEN O AKS LN
HHEERRIITTAAG
G
EEBBAAYYBBLLVVDDWINTERVIEW DRWINTERVIEW DRDD EE LL AASSOOLLLLNN
SPAN ISH OAK S L NSPANISH OAK S L N
TTUUSS CC AA NNYYRREESSEERR
VV
EE
DD
RR
AUTUMN OAK S L NAUTUMN OAK S L N
ENG LIS H OAKS LNENGLISH OAK S LN
SAN DALWOO D LNSANDALWOOD LN POND APPLE DR EPOND APPLE DR EPPOONNDD AA PP PPLLEE DDRR SSPOND APPLE DR WPOND APPLE DR WTTIIBB
UU
RR
OONNDDRROOLLDDEECCYYPPRREESSSSBBLLVVDDCCOORRSSOOMMEE
DDIITT
EE
RRRRAACCIIRR
MMIISSSSIIOONN
DD
RR
BB AA YY LLAAUURREELLDDRRMAHO GANY RIDGE D RMAHOGANY RID GE D R 2255TTHHSSTTSSWW2233RRDDSSTTSSWWGGRROOVVEESSRRDD
E N T R A D A A V EENTRADA A V E
WW EE AA TT HHEERREEDD SSTTOONNEEDDRR
VVIILL LL AA GG EE WWAALL
KK
CCIIRR NURSERY LNNURSERY LNWWIINNDDIINN GG OOAAKKSSWWAAYY
VIKING WAYVIKING WAY
CCAABB
RR
EEOODDRRIILLEEXXCCIIRR
LL EE AARRNNIINNGG LLNN
BBRROOLL IIOO LLNNBBEENNEEVVAARRDD
SSIIEESSTT AA BBAAYYDDRR
DDAANNBBUURRYYBBLLVV
DDMMOORRNNIINNGG
SSUUNNLLNNUPOLO LNUPOLO LNJULIET BLVDJULIET BLVDVV EE RR OO NNAALLNNDDIIAAMMOONNDDCCIIRR
Gulf of Mexico
COLLIERCOLLIER
LEELEE
HENDRYHENDRY
§¨¦75
(/41
¿À29
¿À846
¿À951
¿À82
¿À837
¿À850
¿À858
¿À849
EVERGLADES BLVDOIL W ELL RD
ALICO RD
CORKSCREW RD
DAVIS BLVD
S U M M E R L I N R D
BONITA BEACH RD
^^^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^^
^
^^
^
^
MIAMI
TAMPA
NAPLES
ORLANDO
KEY WEST
SARASOTA
PE NSACOLA
FO RT MY ERS
VER O BEACH
LAKE PLACID
PANAMA CITY
GAIN ESVILLE
TALLAHASSEE JACKSONV ILLE
DAYTONA B EACH
FO RT LAUDERD ALE¶
PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 28, T WP 48 S, RNG 26 E
EX HIB IT 2. P ROJECT LOC ATION MAP T.S.
S.J.
6/17/16
6/17/16LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMO K ALEE RO AD CO MMERCIAL INFIL L SUB DISTRICT
EXHIBIT 3
PROJECT LOCATION WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
WESTBLVDGR EE N B L VDOAKS BLVDLIVINGSTON RDLOGAN BLVDTERRY ST
GO LD E N G AT E B L VD
BO NI T A B E AC H R D
GOODLETTE FRANK RDAIRPORT-PULLINGRDPI N E R IDG E R D
VAND E RB ILT B EA CH R DGOODLETTE RD EXTRIDGEDROLD US 41¿À951
¿À846
(/41
§¨¦75
C O L L I E RCOLLIER
L E ELEE
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
LEGEND
0 0.75 1.5Miles
¶
EX HIBIT 3. PROJECT LOCATION WITH LA ND US E DESIGNATIONS H.H.
K.S.
8/30/16
8/30/16LOGAN BOU LEVARD / IM MOKALEE ROA D COMMERCIAL INF ILL SUBD I STRICT
PROJE CT LOCATION
EXHIBIT 4
AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY
REVIEWED BY
DRA WN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATELOGAN BLVD NLOGAN BLVD NIMMOKALEE R DIMMOKALEE R D
JOHN MICHAEL RDJOHN MICHAEL RD¶¶
0 100 200Feet
LEGEND
PRO JECTLOCATION
EX HIB IT 4. AERIAL WITH BOUN DARY T.S.
S.J.
6/17/16
6/17/16LOGAN B O ULEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROA D COMMERC IAL I NFIL L SU BDISTR ICT
EXHIBIT 5
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS MAP
`+//1-#.''4&``.1)#0$.8&0`2.
241
$F
4159E3
$F
4119E1
$F
4119E1
$F
4119E1
$F
4289E3
$F
6255E3
$F
740
$F
4159E1
$F
6215E3
$F
439
$F
SCALE: 1" = 100', >>INJ>>'PXKTQPOGPVCN&CVC4GRQTVÄ4G5WDOKVVCN>'ZJKDKV#GTKCNYKVJ(.7%(%5/CRÄÄFYI6CD :Ä%6$/C[Ä RO2NQVVGFD[ &QP$13620 Metropolis Avenue
Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
Phone (239) 274-0067
Fax (239) 274-0069
DRAWING No.
SHEET No.
13GLH2170H.H., D.B.
S.J.
4/19/17
DATE
DATE
4/19/17
DATEDRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS MAP EXHIBIT 5
016'5
#'4+#.2*161)4#2*59'4'#%37+4'&6*417)*6*'
%1..+'4%1706;2412'46;#224#+5'451((+%'9+6*
#(.+)*6'1(,#07#4;
2412'46;$1702'456#06'%+0%&4#9+0)0Q
5VP0CRNGU%QOOGTEKCN0GY2TGUGTXGCPF.CMG$CUGFYI
')756
(.7%(%5.+0'5'56+/#6'&(41/ #'4+#.
2*161)4#2*5#0&.1%#6+105#2241:+/#6'&
(.7%(%52'4(.14+&#.#0&75'%18'4#0&(14/5
%.#55+(+%#6+105;56'/
(.7%(%5
(&16
6*'8')'6#6+10#551%+#6+105&'2+%6'&106*+5/#2
9'4'(+'.&4'8+'9'�垒'&$;5(9/&56#((
10#24+.
EXHIBIT 6
FLUCFCS DESCRIPTIONS
E6-1
LOGAN BOULEVARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
FLUCFCS DESCRIPTIONS
Revised May 2017
The Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) codes identified
within Logan Boulevard/ Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict (Project) are listed
below (Table 1). The dominant plant species found in each of these codes are listed in the
FLUCFCS descriptions that follow.
Table 1. FLUCFCS Codes for Logan/Immokalee Parcel
FLUCFCS
Code Description Acreage Percent of
Total
241 Tree Nursery 0.91 4.9
4119 E1 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) 1.64 8.8
4159 E1 Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) 4.56 24.5
4159 E3 Pine, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) 3.53 18.9
4289 E3 Cabbage Palm, Disturbed
(50-75% Exotics) 0.20 1.1
439 Mixed Exotic Hardwoods 3.96 21.2
6215 E3 Cypress, Disturbed and Drained (50-75% Exotics) 0.37 2.0
6255 E3 Pine, Hydric, Disturbed and Drained
(50-75% Exotics) 2.99 16.0
740 Disturbed Land 0.48 2.6
Total 18.64 100.0
Tree Nursery (FLUCFCS Code 241)
A tree nursery is located on the western portion of the Project site. This area consists primarily
of planted date palms (Phoenix dactylifera) and queen palms (Syagrus romanzoffiana).
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1)
This upland habitat is located in the eastern portion of the property. The canopy is dominated by
slash pine (Pinus elliottii), along with scattered cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and earleaf acacia
(Acacia auriculiformis). The sub-canopy vegetation includes cabbage palm, along with rusty
lyonia (Lyonia fruticosa), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), and scattered Brazilian pepper
(Schinus terebinthifolius). The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto, with lesser amounts
of bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax auriculata), and caesarweed (Urena lobata).
Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E1)
This upland habitat occupies the south-central portion of the property. The canopy and sub-
canopy are dominated by slash pine with scattered melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), earleaf
acacia, cabbage palm, rusty lyonia, Brazilian pepper, myrsine (Rapanea punctata), and
E6-2
strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum). The ground cover is dominated by species typical to
disturbed areas, such as muscadine grape, poison ivy, greenbrier, spermacoce (Spermacoce
verticillata), caesarweed, and bracken fern. Additional ground cover species including little blue
maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum), gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum),
Boston fern (Nephrolepis sp.), and swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum) occur in lesser amounts.
Pine, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E3)
This upland habitat is similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E1 but with a higher concentration of
Brazilian pepper in the sub-canopy and melaleuca and earleaf acacia in the canopy.
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4289 E3)
This upland habitat is located near the southeast corner of the property. The canopy is
dominated by cabbage palm, along with very scattered slash pine. The sub-canopy is dominated
by Brazilian pepper, with scattered cabbage palm and citrus (Citrus sp.). The ground cover is
dominated by swamp fern.
Mixed Exotic Hardwoods (FLUCFCS Code 439)
This exotic habitat occupies most of the northeastern portion of the property. The canopy and
sub-canopy are dominated by exotics such as melaleuca, earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, and
strawberry guava. Scattered native species present include widely scattered bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), cabbage palm, myrsine, and cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco). The
ground cover is dominated by swamp fern with scattered sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense),
muscadine grape, and greenbrier.
Cypress, Disturbed and Drained (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6215 E3)
This drained wetland habitat is located near the northeast corner of the property. The canopy is
dominated by bald cypress with cabbage palm and melaleuca. The sub-canopy vegetation
consists of Brazilian pepper, earleaf acacia, and cabbage palm. The ground cover is mostly open
with scattered swamp fern, sawgrass, gulfdune paspalum, muscadine grape, poison ivy, and
caesarweed.
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed and Drained (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6255 E3)
This drained wetland habitat is found in the northwest portion of the property. The canopy is
dominated by slash pine with bald cypress, melaleuca, and earleaf acacia. Brazilian pepper
dominates the sub-canopy stratum, along with scattered laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). The ground cover vegetation commonly includes
swamp fern, along with scattered greenbrier and muscadine grape.
Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740)
Disturbed land is located along the south property line. The canopy and sub-canopy strata are
mostly open, with widely scattered earleaf acacia and Brazilian pepper growing along its
northern edge. The herbaceous ground cover is dominated by species typical of disturbed areas
including beggar-tick (Biden pilosa), spermacoce, muscadine grape, common ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), poinsettia (Poinsettia cyathophora), and flatsedge (Cyperus ligularis).
EXHIBIT 7
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
,1*0/+%*#'.4&`+//1-#.''4&``.1)#0$.8&0`2.
, >>INJ>>'PXKTQPOGPVCN&CVC4GRQTVÄ4G5WDOKVVCN>'ZJKDKV6QRQITCRJKECPF/CRFYI6CD :Ä//C[Ä RO2NQVVGFD[ &QP$SCALE: 1" = 200'
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
D.B.
S.J.
10/13/16
DATE
DATE
10/13/16
DATE
&
PASSARELLAA INCEXHIBIT 7. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
016'5
6121)4#2*+%+0(14/#6+102'4&4#9+0)01Ä
.1)#0Ä+//1-9'56/1&+(+'&6121&9)4'%'+8'&
(41/).*1/'5101%61$'4
.')'0&
6121)4#2*+%'.'8#6+10
6;2
EXHIBIT 8
SOILS MAP
REVIEWED BY
DRA WN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
1717
22
2323
IMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RD
LOGAN BLVD NLOGAN BLVD NJOHN MICHAEL RDJOHN MICHAEL RD¶¶
0 100 200 300Feet
LEGEND
PROJECTLOCATION
EX HIBIT 8. S OILS MAP T.S.
S.J.
6/17/16
6/17/16LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMO K ALEE ROA D CO MMERCIAL INFIL L SUB DISTR ICT
Soil Unit Description Hydric2HOLOPAW FINE SAND, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM YES17BASINGER FINE SAND YES23HOLOPAW AND OKEELANTA SOILS, DEPRESSIONAL YES
D.B.5/18/17
EXHIBIT 9
NATIVE VEGETATION MAP
,1*0/+%*#'.4&`+//1-#.''4&``.1)#0$.8&0`2.
241
$F
4159E3
$F
4119E1
$F
4119E1
$F
4119E1
$F
4289E3
$F
6255E3
$F
740
$F
4159E1
$F
6215E3
$F
439
$F , >>INJ>>'PXKTQPOGPVCN&CVC4GRQTVÄ4G5WDOKVVCN>'ZJKDKV0CVKXG8GIGVCVKQP/CRÄÄFYI6CD :Ä//C[Ä RO2NQVVGFD[ &QP$SCALE: 1" = 200'
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
H.H., D.B.
S.J.
10/12/16
DATE
DATE
10/12/16
DATE
&
PASSARELLAA INCEXHIBIT 9. NATIVE VEGETATION MAP
LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
016'5
2412'46;$1702'456#06'%+0%
&4#9+0)0Q5VP0CRNGU%QOOGTEKCN0GY
2TGUGTXGCPF.CMG$CUGFYI')756
(.7%(%5.+0'5'56+/#6'&(41/
#'4+#.2*161)4#2*5#0&.1%#6+105
#2241:+/#6'&
(.7%(%52'4(.14+&#.#0&75'%18'4#0&
(14/5%.#55+(+%#6+105;56'/
(.7%(%5
(&16
.')'0&
0#6+8'8')'6#6+10
#E
010Ä0#6+8'8')'6#6+10
#E
D.B.5/18/17
EXHIBIT 10
AERIAL WITH CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND
UPLAND PRESERVE AREA MAP
2.
`+//1-#.''4&``.1)#0$.8&0``.#-'`
`.#-'`, >>INJ>>'PXKTQPOGPVCN&CVC4GRQTVÄ4G5WDOKVVCN>'ZJKDKV#GTKCNYKVJ5KVG2.CPCPF7RNCPF2TGUGTXGÄÄFYI6CD :Ä%6$#WIÄ RO2NQVVGFD[ 6QO(SCALE: 1" = 200'
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
H.H.
S.J.
10/12/16
DATE
DATE
10/12/16
DATEEXHIBIT 10. AERIAL WITH CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
016'5
#'4+#.2*161)4#2*59'4'#%37+4'&
6*417)*6*'%1..+'4%1706;2412'46;
#224#+5'451((+%'9+6*#(.+)*6'
1(,#07#4;
5+6'2.#02'456#06'%+0%&4#9+0)01
Ä%27&Ä5600#2.'5%1//'4%+#.0'9
24'5'48'#0&.#-'
$#5'A(14A'64#05/+6#.&9)
')756
(.7%(%5.+0'5'56+/#6'&(41/
#'4+#.2*161)4#2*5#0&.1%#6+105
#2241:+/#6'&
(.7%(%52'4(.14+&#.#0&75'%18'4#0&
(14/5%.#55+(+%#6+105;56'/
(.7%(%5
(&16
.')'0&
0#6+8'8')'6#6+1024'5'48'
#E
AND UPLAND PRESERVE AREA MAP
T.F.8/3/17
EXHIBIT 11
LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT
E11-1
LOGAN BOULEVARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT
Revised November 2016
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella &
Associates, Inc. (PAI) on June 15, 2016 for the Logan Boulevard/ Immokalee Road Commercial
Infill Subdistrict (Project). The purpose of the survey was to review the Project area for plant and
wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC), the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, species of special concern, or
commercially exploited.
The 19± acre Project site is located in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County (Figure 1). More specifically, it is found at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard and is located approximately 1.4 miles east of Interstate
75. The property is bound by Immokalee Road to the north, Logan Boulevard and agricultural
activities to the west, and agricultural activities to the east and south. Saturnia Lakes residential
development is located to the southeast of the Project site. The Project site is comprised
primarily of forested uplands that have been disturbed by the invasion of varying levels of exotic
vegetation and disturbed land.
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Literature Review
The listed plant and wildlife species survey included a literature search for local, state, and
federal listed species and an on-site review conducted on June 15, 2016. The literature search
found no documented occurrences of listed wildlife species within the Project site. The property
is not located within any designated critical habitat areas for listed wildlife species.
The literature search involved an examination of available information on listed species in the
Project’s geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included the FWCC Florida’s
Endangered and Threatened Species (2016); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and
Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the Southeast Region (1987); the Florida Panther Habitat
Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); the Landscape Conservation Strategy Map (Kautz et al.
2006); and the USFWS and/or the FWCC databases for telemetry locations of Florida panther
(Puma concolor coryi), bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW),
Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), and wading bird rookeries, such as the wood
E11-2
stork (Mycteria americana), in Collier County. The results of the literature search found no
documented occurrences of listed wildlife species on-site (Figure 2).
The wildlife agencies’ database information is updated on a periodic basis and it is current
through different dates, depending on the species. The FWCC information is current through the
noted dates for the following four species: Florida panther telemetry – June 2015; bald eagle nest
locations – August 2015; black bear telemetry – August 2015; and RCW locations – August
2015.
The closest documented bald eagle nest is CO-049 located approximately 2.1 miles to the
northwest of the Project site. CO-049 was last active in 2013. The nest distance is beyond the
USFWS and the FWCC recommended 660-foot buffer protection zone bald eagle nests. No bald
eagle nests were identified within the Project limits. The bald eagle is not a listed species, but is
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
No RCW colonies or cavity trees have been documented within the Project area, per the FWCC’s
database (Figure 2). The USFWS considers suitable habitat for RCW to include any forested
community with pines in the canopy that encompasses more than ten acres (i.e., includes both
on- and off-site). Although the Project area does have canopy pine trees, no live slash pine
(Pinus elliotti) cavities were observed during the survey and no sightings were documented in
the area. The RCW is a state and federally listed endangered species.
The Project is located within the 30 kilometer (18.6 miles) Core Foraging Area of one
documented wood stork rookery (No. 619018) (Figure 3). However, the Project contains dense
forested upland habitat types that do not provide habitat for wading birds, including wood storks.
No wood storks or other listed wading bird species were observed on-site. In addition, there was
no reference in the atlas to any breeding colonies located on or adjacent to the Project site. The
wood stork is listed as federally threatened by the FWCC and threatened by the USFWS.
The FWCC database contains no documented Florida black bear radio-telemetry locations on-
site or within the vicinity of the Project area (Figure 2). The site’s relatively small size and
densely urban surroundings do not lend it support as suitable habitat for this species. The Florida
black bear is not listed by the FWCC or the USFWS.
A review of FWCC records found that no Florida panthers are documented within the Project
site or in the immediate vicinity (Figure 2). The property is located outside of both the primary
and secondary zones of the USFWS panther Focus Area, and no Florida panther telemetry points
have been documented on-site or within the Project’s general vicinity (Figure 4). The Florida
panther is listed as federally endangered by the FWCC and endangered by the USFWS.
Field Survey
The property was surveyed on June 15, 2016 for wildlife species listed by the FWCC as
endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and by the USFWS as endangered or
threatened. The property was also surveyed for plant species listed by the FDACS as
E11-3
endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. In addition, the property was surveyed for
the bald eagle and/or their nests since they are protected under Florida Administrative Code 68A-
16.002 and the BGEPA.
The June 15, 2016 field surveys were conducted by qualified ecologists walking meandering
transects spaced approximately 100 feet apart (Figure 5). The site was inspected for listed plant
and wildlife species as well as their signs (e.g., burrows, tracks, scat, scratches, etc.). At regular
intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The
weather during the survey was seasonal with temperatures in the upper 80s to low 90s, clear
skies, and winds ranging from five to ten miles per hour. The survey began at approximately
9:30 a.m. and ended at approximately 3:00 p.m.
No listed wildlife species were documented on the Project site during the survey. One state
listed plant species was observed on-site during the listed species survey, the cardinal airplant
(Tillandsia fasciculata). The locations of the observed cardinal airplants are depicted on Figure
5. The cardinal airplant is listed as endangered by the FDACS.
SUMMARY
The literature search found no documented occurrences of listed wildlife species within the
Project site. No listed wildlife species were observed on the Project site during the June 15,
2016 filed survey. One state listed plant species, the cardinal airplant, was observed on the
Project site during survey. The cardinal airplant is listed as threatened by the FDACS.
E11-4
REFERENCES
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2016. Florida’s Endangered and
Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non-Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida.
Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti,
R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale
conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1,
Pages 118-133.
Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida
Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; Gainesville, Florida.
Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of
Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife
Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
Tallahassee, Florida.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the
Southeast Region.
REVIEWED BY
DR AWN BY
REVISED
DA TE
DA TE
DA TE
§¨¦75
;3EXIT111
IM MOK A LEE R DIMMOKALEE R D
LIVINGSTON RDLIVINGSTON RDVAN D E R BILT B E A CH R DVANDERBILT B EA CH R D
LOGAN BLVD NLOGAN BLVD NOAKES BLVDOAKES BLVDCOLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)AIRPORT PULLING RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NSS
TT
RR
AA
NN
DDBBLLVVDDPIP ER B LV DPIPER B LVD
AARRBBOO RR BBLLVVDD MASSEY STMASSEY STNNOORRTTHHBBRROOOOKKEEDDRRQUARRY DRQUARRY DRGOL D E N G ATE B LVD WGOLDEN G ATE B LV D W
OORRAANNGGEE BBLLOOSSSSOO MM DD RR BBUU RR NN HH AA MM RR DD
THE LANETHE LANEKRAPE RDKRAPE RD31ST ST NW31ST ST NW29TH ST NW29TH ST NW25TH ST NW25TH ST NW23RD ST NW23RD ST NW27TH ST NW27TH ST NW1S T AV E S W1ST AVE S W
5T H AV E N W5TH AV E N W
1S T AV E N W1ST AV E N W
7TH AV E N W7TH AV E N W
3R D AV E S W3RD AV E S W
3R D AVE N W3RD AV E N W
DA N I E L S R DDANIELS R D
J AN D C BLV DJ AN D C BL V D
BU R OA K S LNBUR OA K S LN
HHIIGGHHCCRROOFF TT DD RR
WILDWOOD BLVDWILDWOOD BLVDIISS LL AA NNDD WW AALLKK CCII RR
H U N T E R S R DHUNTERS R D
WO LFE R DWOLFE R D
M E N TOR D RMENTOR D R
CCYYPPRREESSSSWW
AAYYEERICHARDS STRICHARDS STTEA K W O OD D RTEAK W O OD D R
TT II BB UU RROO NN BBLLVVDDEEEERR II EE DD RR
TT RR EE EE LL IINN EEDDRRNN OO TT TTIINNGGHHAAMM DDRR
HID D E N OA K S LNHIDDEN OA K S L N
HHEERRIITTAA
GGEEBBAAYYBBLLVVDDWINTERVIEW DRWINTERVIEW DRDD EE LL AASSOOLLLLNN
S PAN I S H OA K S LNSPANISH OA K S LN
TTUUSS CC AA NNYY RREESSEERRVV
EE
DD
RR
AU T U M N O AK S LNAUTUMN O AK S LN
E NG LIS H OA K S LNENGLISH OA K S L N
S AN D A LW OO D LNSANDALWOOD LN POND APPLE DR EPOND APPLE DR EPPOONNDD AA PP PP LLEE DD RR SSPOND APPLE DR WPOND APPLE DR WTTII
BB
UU
RROONNDDRRCCOORRSSOOMMEE
DD
IITT
EE
RRRRAACCIIRR
MMIISSSSIIOONN
DD
RR
BB AA YY LLAAUURREELLDDRRM AH O GA N Y RID G E DRMAHOGANY RI D G E DR 2255TTHHSSTTSSWWPPHHOO
EENNII
XXWWAA
YY
2233RRDDSSTTSSWWGGRROOVVEESSRRDD
E N T R A D A A V EENTRADA A V E
VVIILLLL AA GG EE WWAALL
KK
CC
II
RR NURSERY LNNURSERY LNWWIINNDDIINN GG OOAAKKSSWWAAYY
VIKING WAYVIKING WAY
IILLEEXXCCIIRR
LL EE AA RR NNIINNGG LL NN
BBRROOLL IIOO LL NNSSIIEESSTT AA BBAAYYDDRR
DDAANNBBUURRYYBBLLVV
DDMMOORRNNIINNGGSSUUNNLLNN AC R E M A K E R R DACREMAKER R D
UPOLO LNUPOLO LNJULIET BLVDJULIET BLVDVV EE RR OO NNAALLNNNAVASSA LNNAVASSA LNDDIIAAMMOONNDDCCIIRR
Gulf of Mexic o
COLLIERCOLLIER
LEELEE
HENDRYHENDRY
§¨¦75
(/41
¿À29
¿À846
¿À951
¿À82
¿À837
¿À850
¿À858
¿À849
EVERGLADES BLVDOIL W ELL RD
ALIC O R D
CORKS CRE W RD
DA VIS BLVD
S U M M E R L I N R D
BONIT A BEAC H RD
^^^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^^
^
^^
^
^
MIAMI
TAMPA
NA PLES
ORL ANDO
KEY WEST
SARASOTA
PENSACOLA
FORT MYERS
VERO BEACH
LAK E PL ACID
PANAM A CITY
GAINESVILLE
TALLAHASS EE JACKSO NVILL E
DAYTONA BEACH
FORT LAUDERDAL E¶
PROJ ECT LOCATIONSEC 28, T W P 48 S, RN G 26 E
FIGURE 1. PRO JECT LOCAT ION MA P T.S .
S.J.
6/1 7/1 6
6/1 7/1 6LOGAN BOULEV ARD / IMMOKALEE ROAD COM MERCIAL IN FILL SU BDIST RICT
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
!H
!H
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
COLLIERCOLLIER
LEELEE
§¨¦75
¿À846 ¿À951LIVINGSTON RDP I N E R ID G E R D
V AN D ERB I L T BEA C H R DOLD US 41LOGAN BLVDAIRPORT-PULLING RDOAKS BLVDB ON I T A B E A C H R D
GOODLETTE FRANK RDGO L D E N GA TE B L V DGOODLETTE RD EXTDRA WN BY
REVIE WED BY
REVIS ED
DAT E
DAT E
DATE
LEGEND
A
!(
#*
!H
PROJECTLOCATION
0 1 2Miles
¶
FIGURE 2. DOCUMENTED O CCURR ENCES OF LISTED SPECIES T.S.
S.J.
6/17/16
6/17/16LOGAN BO ULEVARD / IMM OKALEE ROAD COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
DRA WN BY
REVIE WED BY
REVIS ED
DATE
DATE
DAT E
kj
619018619018
COLLIERCOLLIER
LEELEE
§¨¦75
(/41
0 2 4Miles
¶
LEGEND
kj
PR OJECTLOCATION
FIGURE 3. FLORIDA WOOD ST OR K NESTING COLON IES AND 18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS T.S.
S.J.
6/17 /16
6/17 /16LOGAN BOUL EVARD / IMMOKA LEE ROAD COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTR ICT
DRA WN BY
REVIE WED BY
REVIS ED
DATE
DATE
DATE
COLLIERCOLLIER
LEELEE
§¨¦75
(/41
¿À846 ¿À951LIVINGSTON RDPINE R IDG E R DOLD US 41VAN D ERBIL T BEA CH RD
TER R Y ST
AIRPORT-PULLING RDBONI T A B EACH R D
LOGAN BLVDGOODLETTE FRANK RDGO L D E N GA TE BL VDVANDERBILT DROAKS BLVDCRAYTON RDRIDGE DR
GR EE N B LV DGOODLETTE RD EXTC E N T E R S T
0 1 2
Miles
¶
LEGEND
PR OJECTLOCATION
FIGURE 4. PANTHER ZONES T.S.
S.J.
6/17 /16
6/17 /16LOGAN BOU LEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROA D COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDIST RICT
2.
`+//1-#.''4&``.1)#0$.8&0`CA
CA CA
CA
CA
CA
SCALE: 1" = 100', >>INJ>>.KUVGF5RGEKGU5WTXG[>(KIWTG#GTKCNYKVJ5WTXG[6TCPUGEVUCPF.KUVGF5RGEKGUFYI6CD :Ä%6$1EVÄ RO2NQVVGFD[ &QP$13620 Metropolis Avenue
Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
Phone (239) 274-0067
Fax (239) 274-0069
DRAWING No.
SHEET No.
13GLH2170
S.J.
DATE
DATE
DATEDRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
016'5
#'4+#.2*161)4#2*59'4'#%37+4'&
6*417)*6*'%1..+'4%1706;2412'46;
#224#+5'451((+%'9+6*#(.+)*6'
1(,#07#4;
2412'46;$1702'4).*1/'5&4#9+0)
0QÄ#%4'.1)#0A+//1-&9)'&
,70'
LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
AERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTS AND
LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS MAP
.')'0&
%#4&+0#.#+42.#06
#2241:+/#6'.1%#6+101(9#.-'&
64#05'%65
T.S.10/12/16
10/12/16
FIGURE 5
CA
EXHIBIT 12
NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVE AND SELECTION SUMMARY
E12-1
LOGAN BOULEVARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVE AND SELECTION SUMMARY
Revised August 2017
NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVE SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the native vegetation preserve requirement for the proposed
Commercial Planned Development (CPD) for the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road
Commercial Infill Subdistrict (Project).
Table 1. Native Vegetation Cover Type with FLUCFCS Codes
FLUCFCS Habitat
Native
Vegetation
Acreage
Non-Native
Vegetation
Acreage
Total
241 Tree Nursery 0.00 0.91 0.91
4119 E1 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed
(0-24% Exotics) 1.64 0.00 1.64
4159 E1 Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) 4.56 0.00 4.56
4159 E3 Pine, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) 3.53 0.00 3.53
4289 E3 Cabbage Palm, Disturbed
(50-75% Exotics) 0.20 0.00 0.20
439 Mixed Exotic Hardwoods 0.00 3.96 3.96
6215 E3 Cypress, Disturbed and Drained
(50-75% Exotics) 0.37 0.00 0.37
6255 E3 Pine, Hydric, Disturbed and Drained
(50-75% Exotics) 2.99 0.00 2.99
740 Disturbed Land 0.00 0.48 0.48
Total 13.29 5.35 18.64
Minimum Retained Native Vegetation Requirement
(Native Vegetation Acreage x 15%) 1.99
A minimum of 1± acre of native vegetation (i.e., pine, pine flatwoods, and cabbage palm habitat
types) will be preserved on-site. The location of the proposed preserve area is depicted on
Exhibit 10 in the Environmental Data Report and the attached Figure 1.
According to Table 1 above, the Project’s minimum retained native vegetation requirement is
1.99± acres. Since the minimum preserve standards could not be accommodated within the
proposed concept site plan, one acre of the required native vegetation preserve will be provided
off-site in accordance with Section 3.05.07(H)1.f.i(a) of the Land Development Code (LDC).
Section 3.05.07(H)1.f.i(a) is specific to commercial projects and allows for a property owner to
request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention
requirement be satisfied off-site. Since the proposed zoning is for a CPD and the native
E12-2
vegetation retention requirement is less than two acres, the off-site retention of one acre of native
vegetation is consistent with Section 3.05.07(H)1.f.i(a). The location of the off-site preserve will
be provided at the time of site development.
PRESERVE SELECTION SUMMARY
The location of the upland preserve is depicted in the attached figure. The preserve selection is
consistent with Section 3.05.07(A)4.a of the LDC since a listed plant species was documented
within the preserve. The listed species included one cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fascisculata).
,1*0/+%*#'.4&`+//1-#.''4&``.1)#0$.8&0`2.
CA
`.#-'`
`.#-'`, >>INJ>>'PXKTQPOGPVCN&CVC4GRQTVÄ4G5WDOKVVCN>(KIWTG7RNCPF2TGUGTXGYKVJ.KUVGF5RGEKGU.QECVKQPU/CRÄÄFYI6CD :Ä/#WIÄ RO2NQVVGFD[ 6QO(SCALE: 1" = 200'
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
H.H.
S.J.
10/12/16
DATE
DATE
10/12/16
DATE
&
PASSARELLAA INCFIGURE 1. UPLAND PRESERVE AND LISTED SPECIES
LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
016'5
2412'46;$170#0&5+6'2.#02'4
56#06'%+0%&4#9+0)01Ä%27&Ä560
0#2.'5%1//'4%+#.0'924'5'48'#0&.#-'
$#5'A(14A'64#05/+6#.&9)
')756
.')'0&
%#4&+0#.#+42.#06
0#6+8'8')'6#6+1024'5'48'
#E
241215'&.#-'
CA
LOCATIONS MAP
T.F.8/3/17
EXHIBIT 13
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
CONSISTENCY SUMMARY
E13-1
LOGAN BOULEVARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT CONSISTENCY SUMMARY
November 2016
The following narrative summarizes the consistency for the proposed amendment to the Logan
Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict (Project) with the applicable
objectives and policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of
Collier County’s Growth Management Plan (GMP). The objectives and policies are provided in
italics and are followed by the applicant’s response.
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
“Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation
requirements (The Policies under this Objective shall apply to all of Collier County except for
that portion of the County which is identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
as the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA)).
Policy 6.1.1: For the County’s Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area,
Conservation Designated Area, and Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, Rural-Industrial
District, and Rural-Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation
shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation
retention standards and criteria.”
Development Type Coastal High
Hazard Area
Non-Coastal High
Hazard Area
Residential and Mixed Use development
Less than 2.5 acres 10%Less than 5 acres 10%
Equal to or greater
than 2.5 acres 25%Equal to or greater than 5
acres and less than 20 acres 15%
Equal to or greater than 20
acres 25%
Golf Course 35% 35%
Commercial and Industrial development and
all other non-specified development types
Less than 5 acres 10% Less than 5 acres 10%
Equal to or greater
than 5 acres 15%Equal to or greater than 5
acres 15%
Industrial development (Rural-Industrial
District only)
50%, not to exceed 25%
of the project site
50%, not to exceed 25% of the
project site
E13-2
The Project is consistent with Policy 6.1.1 above because 15 percent native vegetation will be
preserved by a combination on-site and off-site preserve areas. Exhibit 10 in the
Environmental Data report depicts the location of the on-site preserve area. The location of
the off-site preserve will be provided at the time of site development.
Policy 6.1.8: “[re-numbered to reflect merger of Ordinance No. 2002-32 and 2002-54]
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or submittal of appropriate environmental data as
specified in the County’s land development regulations, is required, to provide a method to
objectively evaluate the impact of a proposed development, site alteration, or Project upon
the resources and environmental quality of the Project area and the community and to insure
that planning and zoning decisions are made with a complete understanding of the impact of
such decisions upon the environment, to encourage Projects and developments that will
protect, conserve and enhance, but not degrade, the environmental quality and resources of
the particular Project or development site, the general area and the greater community. The
County’s land development regulations shall establish the criteria for determining the type of
proposed development requiring an EIS, including the size and nature of the proposed
development, the location of the proposed development in relation to existing environmental
characteristics, the degree of site alterations, and other pertinent information.”
The Project is consistent with Policy 6.1.8 above because the applicant provided an
Environmental Data Report that outlines the environmental issues within the Project site.
OBJECTIVE 7.1:
“Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. (The County
relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies to identify species that require special
protection because of their endangered, threatened, or species of special concern status. Listed
animal species are those species that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
has designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, in accordance with
Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, F.A.C. and those species designated by various
federal agencies as Endangered and Threatened species published in 50 CFR 17.)
Policy 7.1.2: [this Policy reflects merger of Ordinance No. 2002-32 and 2002-54]
Within areas of Collier County, excluding the lands contained in the RLSA Overlay, non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed
away from listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and
standards:
(1) A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to
inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species
are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the
FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species that may be discovered.
E13-3
The Project is consistent with Policy 7.1.2(1) above because a listed wildlife survey was
provided for the site. A copy of the Listed Species Survey Report is provided as Exhibit 11
in the Environmental Data Report.
Logan/Immokalee GMPA
GMP Amendment and CPUD Rezoning
Transportation Impact Statement (TIS)
215613260
Prepared for:
Immokalee Road Associates, LLC
1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway,
Suite 400, Sunrise, FL 33332
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services
Incorporated
5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 300
Naples, Florida 34108
December 5, 2016
May 22, 2017 Updated
TIS Methodology Meeting Fee - $500
Major TIS Application Fee - $1,500
Design with community in mind
1 | Page
PURPOSE
The following traffic impact statement (TIS) is intended to satisfy the applicable
requirements associated with a Major Study to support the Growth Management Plan
Amendment (GMPA) and the associated CPUD Rezoning for the Logan/Immokalee
GMPA project (hereafter “PROJECT”) located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. The PROJECT is currently zoned
A-Agriculture. The property is currently vacant. The applicant intends to construct a
shopping center with a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. A
Methodology Meeting was held with County Staff on May 24, 2016. The Methodology
Meeting Checklist is attached in the Appendices.
STUDY AREA
The 18.64 acre site is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee
Road and Logan Boulevard, approximately 1.4 miles east of I-75 and 1.9 miles west of
Collier Boulevard (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1: Site Location
Site
2 | Page
FIGURE 2: Master Concept Plan
ACCESS CONNECTIONS
The PROJECT site is in the
southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Immokalee Road
and Logan Boulevard, with
frontage on both roadways. As
shown on the Master Concept
Plan (Figure 2), access to the
site is proposed to include a
right-in/right-out (RI/RO)
connection on Immokalee
Road at the northeast corner of
the site, and a full access
connection on Logan
Boulevard at the south west
corner of the site, the latter
being a shared ingress/egress
connection with the adjoining
nursery/landscape business
immediately to the south.
In addition to the shared
access connection to Logan
Boulevard, an internal
connection to the adjoining
parcel immediately to the east
is being provided to satisfy the
code requirements for
accommodating
interconnections to adjacent
parcels. The PROJECT also
provides an easement in the
southeast corner that allows for
an interconnection between
the parcel to the east and the
parcel to the south to
accommodate future access
to Logan Boulevard.
PROJECT BUILD-OUT
The PROJECT is expected to be built out by 2019.
3 | Page
Enter
Trips
Exit
Trips
Enter
Trips
Exit
Trips
AM Pk Hr 156 - 156 62%38%97 59 97 59
PM Pk Hr 599 0.25 150 449 48%52%288 311 216 233
Excluding Pass-ByDriveway VolumeEnter
Rate
Exit
RateITE Land Use (LU)ITE
LU#Units Unit of
Measure
24-Hr
Trips
(2-Way)
Peak
Hour
Trips
Pass-By
Rate
Pass-By
Trips
Net
New
Trips
Sq. Ft.
(GLFA)Shopping Center 820 100,000 6,791
TRIP GENERATION
The p.m. peak hour trip generation for the PROJECT is based upon ITE Trip Generation Manual,
9th Ed., and is shown below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The percent of project trips, and the resulting number of trips assigned to each roadway
segment within the study area as provided for in the approved methodology is depicted below
in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2: Trip Distribution and Assignment
I-75Logan Blvd5%5%
11 12
43 20%
25%58 40%93 43 20%40%86 Immokalee Rd 20%43
25%54 40%86 130 40%93 40%93 20%47
60%
93
25%45%449 Total 15%15%
54 105 216 Enter 35 32
233 Exit
15%15%
35 32
5%12 5%11
5%11 5%12 Vanderbilt Beach Rd
5%5%
12 11
100,000 SqFt
Distribution - Net New Trips
Collier Blvd
4 | Page
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED LINKS
Pursuant to the TIS guidelines an evaluation of the trips assigned to the network was conducted
to determine which segments were significantly impacted by project traffic (i.e., PROJECT trips
exceeding 2% of the peak directional service volume). Project traffic was traced along the
network until the segments were no longer significantly impacted by the number of assigned
trips. Table 2 depicts the evaluated links. Only three segments within the study area were found
to be significantly impacted by project trips
TABLE 2: Determination of Significantly Impacted Links
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing conditions were evaluated based upon the 2016 AUIR values available at the time
of the preparation of the TIS. The existing conditions for the three significantly impacted
roadway segments are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3: Existing Conditions
Segment From To
AUIR
ID#
# of
Lanes
Each
Dir
LOS
Std
Directional
Service
Volume (1)
Criteria % of
Threshold
Trips
% of
LOS
% Project
Traffic
Assigned
Project
Trips
Exceeds
2%-2%-3%
Threshold
at Build
Out
Immokalee Road Livingston I-75 42.2 3/4 E 3,500 2%70 25%58 54 No
Immokalee Road I-75 Logan Blvd 43.1 3/4 E 3,500 2%70 40%93 86 Yes
Immokalee Road Logan Blvd. Collier Blvd.43.2 3 E 3,200 2%64 40%86 93 Yes
Immokalee Road Collier Blvd.Wilson Blvd.44.0 3 E 3,300 2%66 20%43 47 No
Logan Blvd (2)Immokalee Road North NA 1 D 1,000 2%20 5%12 11 No
Logan Blvd Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Bch Road 50.0 1 D 1,000 2%20 15%32 35 Yes
Logan Blvd Vanderbilt Bch Road Pine Ridge Road 48.0 1 D 1,000 2%20 5%11 12 No
Vanderbilt Bch Road Livingston Road Logan Blvd.111.2 3 E 3,000 2%60 5%12 11 No
Vanderbilt Bch Road Logan Blvd. Collier Blvd.112.0 3 E 3,000 2%60 5%11 12 No
Collier Blvd Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Roa 30.1 3 E 3,000 2%60 15%32 35 No
(1) 2016 AUIR
(2) This segment of Logan is not in the AUIR; Characteristics borrowed from south of Immokalee Road
Net New
Directional Project
Trips Assigned
NB/WB SB/EB
Road Name From To
LOS
Std
Peak
Dir
Directional
Service
Volume (1)
2016
Exisiting
Volumes
(1)
V/Std
Ratio LOS
Immokalee Road I-75 Logan Blvd E EB 3,500 2,410 0.69 C
Immokalee Road Logan Blvd. Collier Blvd.E EB 3,200 1,960 0.61 C
Logan Blvd Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Bch Road D NB 1,000 590 0.59 C
(1) 2016 AUIR
5 | Page
FUTURE CONDITIONS
Background growth (traffic growth not associated with project trips) on the significantly
impacted links was derived by comparing the 2016 AUIR annual growth rate (AGR) for each
segment against the 2016 AUIR’s +1/7th Trip Bank Total. As shown in Table 4, the AGR value was
the larger of the two values for one segment, while the Trip Bank value was the larger value for
two segments (the higher values shown in red).
TABLE 4: Background Traffic Growth Determination
Future traffic without project traffic was developed by adding the higher of the background
growth values to the existing 2016 volumes (Table 5). The analysis shows all three segments
operating at an acceptable level of service in 2019.
TABLE 5: Future Background Traffic
Project trips on the significantly impacted roadways were combined with the higher
background growth value identified in Table 4 to yield the future total traffic volume on each
segment, shown in Table 6. The analysis shows all three segments operating at an acceptable
level of service in 2019.
TABLE 6: Future Total Traffic
Road Name From To
LOS
Std
Peak
Dir
2016
Exisiting
Volumes
(1)
Annual
Growth
Rate (AGR)
(1)
2019
Bkgd
Volumes
Using AGR
Net
Growth
Using
AGR
2016 Trip
Bank
Immokalee Road I-75 Logan Blvd E EB 2,410 3.72%2,689 279 474
Immokalee Road Logan Blvd. Collier Blvd.E EB 1,960 4.00%2,205 245 603
Logan Blvd Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Bch Road D NB 590 4.00%664 74 30
(1) 2016 AUIR
Road Name From To
LOS
Std
Peak
Dir
Directional
Service
Volume (1)
Net Bkgd
Growth
Using
Highest
Value
2016
Exisiting
Volumes
(1)
2019
Estimate
Total
V/Std
Ratio LOS
Immokalee Road I-75 Logan Blvd E EB 3,500 474 2,410 2,884 0.82 D
Immokalee Road Logan Blvd. Collier Blvd.E EB 3,200 603 1,960 2,563 0.80 D
Logan Blvd Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Bch Road D NB 1,000 74 590 664 0.66 C
(1) 2016 AUIR
Road Name From To LOS
Std
Peak
Dir
2019
Project
Trips (Pk
Dir)
Net Bkgd
Growth
Using
Highest
Value
2019
Estimate
Net
Growth
Total
2019
Bkgd +
Project
Volumes
Total
Directional
Service
Volume
V/Std
Ratio LOS
Immokalee Road I-75 Logan Blvd E EB 86 474 560 2,970 3,500 0.85 D
Immokalee Road Logan Blvd. Collier Blvd.E EB 93 603 696 2,656 3,200 0.83 D
Logan Blvd Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Bch Road D NB 35 74 109 699 1,000 0.70 C
(1) 2016 AUIR
6 | Page
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Vehicle turning movement counts were conducted at the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road
intersection and at the existing driveway connection on Logan Boulevard on Thursday June 2,
2016. The turning movement counts were taken during the PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM)
to quantify existing PM peak-hour conditions. It should be noted that no traffic used the existing
driveway connection on Logan Boulevard that today serves as a gated exit only connection for
the existing landscape nursery business to the south. We do not expect the nursery’s use of the
shared access to change in the immediate future.
The turning movement counts at the intersections were then adjusted by FDOT’s peak-season
conversion factor of 1.19 published for Collier County for the week the data was collected. The
peak-season factors, turning movement counts, and signal timing information are attached in
Appendix B.
The intersection analysis was performed using the Synchro Software. As part of the analysis,
existing lane geometry was used at the intersection. An overall intersection level-of-service
standard of E, corresponding with Collier County’s adopted level-of-service for Immokalee
Road, was used for the intersection. In addition to the overall delay, the approach level of
service at the intersection was checked to make sure it was E or better with each intersection
movement having a v/c ratio less than 1.0.
Like the future roadway conditions, future intersection volumes were grown at a 4% annual
growth rate to the year 2019 to establish the background traffic conditions. Prior to evaluating
project traffic at the intersection, the necessary improvements to allow the intersection to
operate at acceptable level-of-service standards were assumed to be in place. Chapter
163.3180 Florida Statutes and Chapter 2011-139, Laws of Florida as amended by HB 319 requires
a developer to only correct those transportation deficiencies that are directly created by the
addition of their project traffic. The following intersection improvements were identified as being
needed to correct the background traffic deficiencies:
• Add a fourth eastbound through lane
• Add a second northbound right turn lane
Once the improvements required to correct the background deficiencies were assumed to be
in place, project traffic was then added to the improved background traffic conditions. The
project traffic will not create any additional deficiencies, beyond what is required to correct the
background traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7 and the
Synchro output worksheets are summarized in Appendix C.
7 | Page
TABLE 7: Logan Blvd/Immokalee Rd Intersection Operating Conditions
SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS
The development will utilize a full access
connection to Logan Boulevard and a right-
in/right-out connection to Immokalee Road.
The need for turn lanes was based on Collier
County’s Construction Standards Handbook
for Work within the Public Right-of-Way.
Section III(A.)(1.) specify the threshold volumes
for right and left turn lanes. During the PM
peak-hour, it is estimated that 43 vehicles will
make a northbound right turn and 72 vehicles
will make a southbound left turn from Logan
Boulevard. The 43 right turning vehicles
exceed the threshold volume of 40 vehicles
for constructing a right turn lane and the 72
left turning vehicles exceed the threshold
volume of 20 vehicles for constructing a left
turn lane.
During the PM peak-hour, it is estimated that 173 vehicles will make an eastbound right turn from
Immokalee Road. For multi-lane divided roadways, Collier County requires right turn lanes
regardless of the turning volume. The total traffic volumes entering the site (new external plus
pass-by) are shown in Figure 3. Both Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road have a posted
speed of 45 mph. FDOT Standard Index 301 specifies a deceleration length of 185 feet for a
speed of 45 mph; therefore, the right turn lanes need to be 185 feet.
Standard Calc.EB WB NB SB
2016 Existing E E 61.1 1.08 E C E C
2019 Bkgd E F 106.0 1.29 F D F D
2019 Bkgd w/Imp.E D 36.4 0.89 C C D E
2019 Total E D 43.9 0.97 D C E E
Overall Intersection LOS
Logan Blvd &
Immokalee Rd
Approach LOSIntersectionScenarioDelay
(sec/veh)
Max v/c
Ratio
5%5%
14 16
58 20%
40%124 58 20%
40%115 173 40%124
60%
124
25%45%599 Total
72 140 288 Enter
311 Exit
15%15%
47 43
100,000 SqFt
FIGURE 3: Total Traffic Volumes
8 | Page
The required unsignalized queue length for the left turn lane was calculated using procedures
outlined in the AASHTO Green Book. The AASHTO Green Book specifies that at a minimum,
queue storage for at least two vehicles (50 feet) be provided. The 72 southbound left turning
vehicle will require 60 feet of queue storage; therefore, the left turn lane should be 245 feet
(185 + 60). The queue length calculation for the left turn lane is shown below:
Southbound Left Turn Lane Queue Length: 72 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣ℎℎ𝑟𝑟�1 ℎ𝑟𝑟60 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚��2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚��25 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣ℎ�=60 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
CONCLUSIONS
The Logan/Immokalee GMPA project, if built to the maximum 100,000 square feet, can be
expected to generate 449 net new p.m. peak hour 2-way trips that would be distributed to the
surrounding roadway network. The link-level concurrency analysis indicates that the net new
trips will not create any adverse LOS conditions. The operational analysis of the signalized
intersection of Immokalee Road at Logan Boulevard indicates there may be adverse conditions
because of background traffic growth (unrelated to the PROJECT); however, the net new trips
generated by the PROJECT do not create any additional adverse impacts at buildout.
The site impact analysis indicates that 185-foot right turn lanes are warranted at the Logan
Boulevard and Immokalee Road access points and a 245-foot southbound left turn lane is
warranted at the Logan Boulevard access point. Turn lanes should be constructed in
accordance with the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual and Standard Index 301.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
2014 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL
Category: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE
MOCF: 0.88
Week Dates SF PSCF
================================================================================
1 01/01/2014 - 01/04/2014 1.00 1.14
2 01/05/2014 - 01/11/2014 0.98 1.11
3 01/12/2014 - 01/18/2014 0.96 1.09
4 01/19/2014 - 01/25/2014 0.94 1.07
* 5 01/26/2014 - 02/01/2014 0.92 1.05
* 6 02/02/2014 - 02/08/2014 0.90 1.02
* 7 02/09/2014 - 02/15/2014 0.88 1.00
* 8 02/16/2014 - 02/22/2014 0.86 0.98
* 9 02/23/2014 - 03/01/2014 0.86 0.98
*10 03/02/2014 - 03/08/2014 0.86 0.98
*11 03/09/2014 - 03/15/2014 0.86 0.98
*12 03/16/2014 - 03/22/2014 0.86 0.98
*13 03/23/2014 - 03/29/2014 0.87 0.99
*14 03/30/2014 - 04/05/2014 0.88 1.00
*15 04/06/2014 - 04/12/2014 0.88 1.00
*16 04/13/2014 - 04/19/2014 0.89 1.01
*17 04/20/2014 - 04/26/2014 0.92 1.05
18 04/27/2014 - 05/03/2014 0.94 1.07
19 05/04/2014 - 05/10/2014 0.96 1.09
20 05/11/2014 - 05/17/2014 0.98 1.11
21 05/18/2014 - 05/24/2014 1.00 1.14
22 05/25/2014 - 05/31/2014 1.03 1.17
23 06/01/2014 - 06/07/2014 1.05 1.19
24 06/08/2014 - 06/14/2014 1.07 1.22
25 06/15/2014 - 06/21/2014 1.09 1.24
26 06/22/2014 - 06/28/2014 1.10 1.25
27 06/29/2014 - 07/05/2014 1.10 1.25
28 07/06/2014 - 07/12/2014 1.11 1.26
29 07/13/2014 - 07/19/2014 1.11 1.26
30 07/20/2014 - 07/26/2014 1.11 1.26
31 07/27/2014 - 08/02/2014 1.12 1.27
32 08/03/2014 - 08/09/2014 1.12 1.27
33 08/10/2014 - 08/16/2014 1.12 1.27
34 08/17/2014 - 08/23/2014 1.13 1.28
35 08/24/2014 - 08/30/2014 1.14 1.30
36 08/31/2014 - 09/06/2014 1.16 1.32
37 09/07/2014 - 09/13/2014 1.18 1.34
38 09/14/2014 - 09/20/2014 1.20 1.36
39 09/21/2014 - 09/27/2014 1.17 1.33
40 09/28/2014 - 10/04/2014 1.14 1.30
41 10/05/2014 - 10/11/2014 1.11 1.26
42 10/12/2014 - 10/18/2014 1.08 1.23
43 10/19/2014 - 10/25/2014 1.07 1.22
44 10/26/2014 - 11/01/2014 1.06 1.20
45 11/02/2014 - 11/08/2014 1.05 1.19
46 11/09/2014 - 11/15/2014 1.04 1.18
47 11/16/2014 - 11/22/2014 1.03 1.17
48 11/23/2014 - 11/29/2014 1.02 1.16
49 11/30/2014 - 12/06/2014 1.01 1.15
50 12/07/2014 - 12/13/2014 1.01 1.15
51 12/14/2014 - 12/20/2014 1.00 1.14
52 12/21/2014 - 12/27/2014 0.98 1.11
53 12/28/2014 - 12/31/2014 0.96 1.09
* Peak Season
Page 1 of 7
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 6/15/2016 6:37 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:Logan Blvd N -- Dwy Connection QC JOB #:13833402
CITY/STATE:Naples, FL DATE:Thu, Jun 02 2016
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Logan Blvd N
(Northbound)
Logan Blvd N
(Southbound)
Dwy Connection
(Eastbound)
Dwy Connection
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R*
4:00 PM 0 105 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180
4:15 PM 0 92 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162
4:30 PM 0 102 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202
4:45 PM 0 141 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 764
5:00 PM 0 120 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206 790
5:15 PM 0 138 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 868
5:30 PM 0 154 0 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 921
5:45 PM 0 127 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 914
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R*
All Vehicles 0 616 0 0 0 0 404 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1020
Heavy Trucks 0 8 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
R* = RTOR
Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:30 PM -- 5:45 PM
0 553 0
03680
0
0
0 0
0
0
553
368
0
0
553
368
0
0
0.90
0.0 2.5 0.0
0.010.30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
10.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
10.3
0.0
0.0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 6/15/2016 6:37 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:Logan Blvd N -- Immokalee Rd QC JOB #:13833401
CITY/STATE:Naples, FL DATE:Thu, Jun 02 2016
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Logan Blvd N
(Northbound)
Logan Blvd N
(Southbound)
Immokalee Rd
(Eastbound)
Immokalee Rd
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R*
4:00 PM 33 17 23 0 27 16 17 3 0 20 26 407 27 3 8 23 371 5 0 7 1033
4:15 PM 35 16 18 0 21 15 10 5 0 16 45 398 29 5 14 28 268 5 1 5 934
4:30 PM 31 19 10 0 22 9 13 1 0 31 26 446 44 1 13 24 313 4 0 1 1008
4:45 PM 28 24 71 0 25 14 19 5 0 32 31 520 26 4 13 25 261 14 2 4 1118 4093
5:00 PM 36 15 60 0 16 9 23 15 0 21 25 543 34 3 17 17 311 7 0 1 1153 4213
5:15 PM 33 15 54 0 22 7 17 5 0 26 35 630 36 2 14 28 312 8 0 2 1246 4525
5:30 PM 31 16 95 0 17 8 22 6 0 25 48 599 37 2 18 29 276 8 1 2 1240 4757
5:45 PM 34 15 45 0 22 12 7 6 0 26 36 587 37 1 20 21 262 4 0 5 1140 4779
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R*
All Vehicles 132 60 216 0 88 28 68 20 0 104 140 2520 144 8 56 112 1248 32 0 8 4984
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 80 32 4 104 0 232
Pedestrians 0 0 0 4 4
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
R* = RTOR
Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM
134 61 331
3669130
152
2359
213 96
1161
37
526
235
2724
1294
242
377
2727
1433
0.96
5.2 0.0 0.6
2.88.73.8
0.7
3.3
7.0 4.2
5.4
0.0
1.7
5.1
3.5
5.2
0.4
6.6
3.0
5.2
1
0
0 1
0 0 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Intersection:Logan Boulevard & Immokalee RoadCount Date:P.M. Peak Time Period:5:00 - 6:00 PMPeak Hour Factor:0.96Existing Traffic EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRRaw Turning Movement Counts 152 2359 213 96 1161 37 134 61 331 36 69 130Peak Season Factor 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.192016 Existing Conditions 181 2807 253 114 1382 44 159 73 394 43 82 155Future TrafficEBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRExisting Conditions181 2807 253 114 1382 44 159 73 394 43 82 155Years to Build-out333333333333Annual Growth Rate 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%Background Traffic Growth 23 350 32 14 173 5 20 9 49 5 10 192019 Future Conditions 204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174Project TrafficEBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRProject Trips0 86 0 86 0 0 93 12 0 0 11 0Total Project Traffic0 86 0 86 0 0 93 12 0 0 11 0Total TrafficEBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRFuture Traffic204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174Project Traffic0 86 0 86 0 0 93 12 0 0 11 02019 Total Conditions 204 3243 285 214 1555 49 272 94 443 48 103 174TRAFFIC VOLUME AT STUDY INTERSECTIONS06/02/16Immokalee Rd Immokalee Rd Logan Blvd Logan Blvd
Programmed EPAC Data 6/13/2016
2:11:43PM
Min_Gap
Time To
Reduce
Cars
Before
Reduction
Time B4
ReductionMax_InitialAll RedYellowMax2Max1PassageMin_GrnPhase
Vehical Basic Timings
Added Initial
Vehical Density Timings
1 2.0 4.8 2.2 0.0 5 20 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
2 4.0 4.8 2.2 0.0 15 60 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
3 2.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 5 20 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
4 2.0 4.8 2.3 0.0 5 25 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
5 2.0 4.8 2.2 0.0 5 35 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
6 4.0 4.8 2.2 0.0 15 60 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
7 2.0 4.8 2.3 0.0 5 30 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
8 2.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 5 20 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Intersection Name: Immokalee @ Logan Blvd Intersection Alias: IM127
Channel: 48 Address:
115
Access Code: 9999 Revision: 3.33d
Phase Data
Port 2 Comm :19200 Baud
Port 3 Comm :19200 Baud
Access Data
Initialize
Non-Act
Response
Extended
Ped
Clear
Flashing
Walk
Ped
ClearWalkPhase
Actuated
Rest
in Walk
Pedestrian Timing
Veh
Recall
Ped
Recall
Recall
Delay Non
Lock
Dual
Entry
Last Car
Passage
Conditional
Service
No
Simultaneous
Gap Out
General Control Miscellaneous
0No NoneInactive 0None None Yes No No No NoNo 1 0 0
0No NoneGreen 0Min None Yes No No No NoNo 2 7 24
0No NoneInactive 0None None Yes No No No NoNo 3 0 0
0No NoneInactive 0None None Yes Yes No No NoNo 4 7 37
0No NoneInactive 0None None Yes No No No NoNo 5 0 0
0No NoneGreen 0Min None Yes No No No NoNo 6 9 36
0No NoneInactive 0None None Yes No No No NoNo 7 0 0
0No NoneInactive 0None None Yes Yes No No NoNo 8 10 36
Special Sequence
Default Data
Vehical Detector Phase Assignment
Assigned
Phase
Switched
Phase Extend DelayMode
6 0 0Vehical Detector Channel :1 Veh 0.0
1 0 0Vehical Detector Channel :2 Veh 0.0
7 0 0Vehical Detector Channel :3 Veh 0.0
2 0 0Vehical Detector Channel :5 Veh 0.0
5 0 0Vehical Detector Channel :6 Veh 0.0
3 0 0Vehical Detector Channel :7 Veh 0.0
Default Data
Pedestrian Detector
Default Data
Special Detector Phase Assignment
Assign
Phase Mode
Switched
Phase Extend Delay
:
Default Data
Unit Data
Startup Time: 6sec Startup State: All Red Red Revert: 4sec
General Control
Auto Ped Clear: No Stop Time Reset: No Alternate Sequence: 0
ABC connector Input Modes: 0
ABC connector Output Modes: 0
D connector Input Modes: 0
D connector Output Modes: 6
Output
Selection
Input
ResponsRing
1 Ring 1 Ring 1
2 Ring 2 Ring 2
3 None None
4 None None
Remote Flash
Phase
Flash
Entry
Phase
Flash
Exit
Phase
Test A = Flash No
2 No Yes
4 Yes No
6 No Yes
8 Yes No
Flash
Alternat
Flash
ColorChannel
1 Red No
2 Yellow No
3 Red Yes
4 Red Yes
5 Red No
6 Yellow No
7 Red Yes
8 Red Yes
Page 1 of 9
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
Phase(s)
OverlapsOverlaps
P
A
4.0
2.0
0
0
0Trail Green
Trail Yellow
Trail Red
Plus Green
Minus Green
B
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
C
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
D
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
E
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
F
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
G
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
H
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
I
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
J
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
K
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
L
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
M
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
N
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
O
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
P
4.0
2.0
0
0
0
ConcurrentPhases 1
5
6
2
5
6
3
7
8
4
7
8
1
2
5
1
2
6
3
4
7
3
4
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Phase(s)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Next
PhaseRingPhase
1 1 2
2 1 3
3 1 4
4 1 1
5 2 6
6 2 7
7 2 8
8 2 5
Ring
Alternate Sequences
1
1 1
2
1.00
Phase
Pair(s)
Alternate Sequences
Port 1 Data
Message
40
Port
Status
BIU
Addr
0 Used No
1 Used No
8 Used No
16 Used No
Channel Assignment
Hardware Pin SetChannelControl Hardware Pin SetChannelControl Hardware Pin SetChannelControl
1 11 - Ph.1 RYGPh.1 Veh 2 22 - Ph.2 RYGPh.2 Veh 3 33 - Ph.3 RYGPh.3 Veh
4 44 - Ph.4 RYGPh.4 Veh 5 55 - Ph.5 RYGPh.5 Veh 6 66 - Ph.6 RYGPh.6 Veh
7 77 - Ph.7 RYGPh.7 Veh 8 88 - Ph.8 RYGPh.8 Veh 9 1010 - Ph.2 DPWPh.2 Ped
10 1212 - Ph.4 DPWPh.4 Ped 11 1414 - Ph.6 DPWPh.6 Ped 12 1616 - Ph.8 DPWPh.8 Ped
13 1717 - Ph.1 RYGPh.1 OLP 14 1818 - Ph.2 RYGPh.2 OLP 15 1919 - Ph.3 RYGPh.3 OLP
16 2020 - Ph.4 RYGPh.4 OLP 17 99 - Ph.1 DPWPh.1 Ped 18 1111 - Ph.3 DPWPh.3 Ped
19 1313 - Ph.5 DPWPh.5 Ped 20 1515 - Ph.7 DPWPh.7 Ped
Page 2 of 9
Operation Mode: 1=Auto
Coordination Mode: 2=Permissive
YieldMaximun Mode: 0=Inhibit
Correction Mode: 2=Short Way
Offset Mode: 0=Beg Grn
Force Mode: 0=Plan
Max Dwell Time: 0
Yield Period: 0
Manual Dial: 1
Manual Split: 1
Manual Offset: 1
General Coordination Data
Coordination Data Dial/Split Cycle
145 1/1
145 1/2
145 1/3
135 1/4
135 2/1
145 2/2
135 2/3
135 3/1
145 3/2
135 3/3
180 3/4
160 4/1
160 4/2
180 4/3
Page 3 of 9
Split Times and Phase Mode
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 1 / Split 1
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 25 1 1=Coordinate 78 2 0=Actuated 18 3 0=Actuated 24 4
0=Actuated 25 5 1=Coordinate 78 6 0=Actuated 24 7 0=Actuated 18 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 1 / Split 2
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 23 1 1=Coordinate 67 2 0=Actuated 22 3 0=Actuated 33 4
0=Actuated 23 5 1=Coordinate 67 6 0=Actuated 30 7 0=Actuated 25 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 1 / Split 3
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 27 1 1=Coordinate 63 2 0=Actuated 18 3 0=Actuated 37 4
0=Actuated 17 5 1=Coordinate 73 6 0=Actuated 18 7 0=Actuated 37 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 1 / Split 4
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 21 1 1=Coordinate 69 2 0=Actuated 21 3 0=Actuated 24 4
0=Actuated 21 5 1=Coordinate 69 6 0=Actuated 21 7 0=Actuated 24 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 2 / Split 1
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 21 1 1=Coordinate 71 2 0=Actuated 22 3 0=Actuated 21 4
0=Actuated 21 5 1=Coordinate 71 6 0=Actuated 22 7 0=Actuated 21 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 2 / Split 2
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 23 1 1=Coordinate 74 2 0=Actuated 25 3 0=Actuated 23 4
0=Actuated 23 5 1=Coordinate 74 6 0=Actuated 25 7 0=Actuated 23 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 2 / Split 3
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 21 1 1=Coordinate 69 2 0=Actuated 21 3 0=Actuated 24 4
0=Actuated 21 5 1=Coordinate 69 6 0=Actuated 21 7 0=Actuated 24 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 3 / Split 1
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 21 1 1=Coordinate 71 2 0=Actuated 22 3 0=Actuated 21 4
0=Actuated 21 5 1=Coordinate 71 6 0=Actuated 22 7 0=Actuated 21 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 3 / Split 2
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 23 1 1=Coordinate 74 2 0=Actuated 25 3 0=Actuated 23 4
0=Actuated 23 5 1=Coordinate 74 6 0=Actuated 25 7 0=Actuated 23 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 3 / Split 3
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 21 1 1=Coordinate 69 2 0=Actuated 21 3 0=Actuated 24 4
0=Actuated 21 5 1=Coordinate 69 6 0=Actuated 21 7 0=Actuated 24 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 3 / Split 4
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 27 1 1=Coordinate 95 2 0=Actuated 29 3 0=Actuated 29 4
0=Actuated 32 5 1=Coordinate 90 6 0=Actuated 29 7 0=Actuated 29 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 4 / Split 1
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 24 1 1=Coordinate 84 2 0=Actuated 26 3 0=Actuated 26 4
0=Actuated 28 5 1=Coordinate 80 6 0=Actuated 26 7 0=Actuated 26 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 4 / Split 2
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 27 1 1=Coordinate 78 2 0=Actuated 18 3 0=Actuated 37 4
0=Actuated 17 5 1=Coordinate 88 6 0=Actuated 18 7 0=Actuated 37 8
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
Dial 4 / Split 3
Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.Ph. ModeSplitsPh.
0=Actuated 30 1 1=Coordinate 88 2 0=Actuated 20 3 0=Actuated 42 4
0=Actuated 19 5 1=Coordinate 99 6 0=Actuated 20 7 0=Actuated 42 8
Page 4 of 9
Traffic Plan Data
Plan: 1/1/1 Offset Time: 102 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 1/2/1 Offset Time: 126 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 1/3/1 Offset Time: 45 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 1/4/1 Offset Time: 87 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 2/1/1 Offset Time: 72 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 2/2/1 Offset Time: 64 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 2/3/1 Offset Time: 87 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 3/1/1 Offset Time: 72 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 3/2/1 Offset Time: 72 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 3/3/1 Offset Time: 87 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 3/4/1 Offset Time: 146 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 4/1/1 Offset Time: 116 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 4/2/1 Offset Time: 16 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Plan: 4/3/1 Offset Time: 27 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: 0=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0
Local TBC Data
Start of Daylight Saving
End of Daylight Saving
Month: 3
Month: 11
Week: 2
Week: 1
Cycle Zero Reference Hours: 24 Min: 0 7654321
Source
Day
Equate Days
2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0
Traffic Data
Event Day Time D/S/O flash 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
PHASE FUNCTION
1 1 0:1 0/0/4
2 1 6:0 0/0/4
3 1 9:0 3/1/1
4 1 10:0 3/2/1
5 1 18:0 3/3/1
6 1 20:30 0/0/4
7 2 0:1 0/0/4
8 2 6:0 1/1/1
9 2 6:30 4/1/1
10 2 9:30 1/2/1
11 2 15:20 4/2/1
12 2 18:0 1/3/1
13 2 19:0 1/4/1
14 2 22:0 0/0/4
15 7 0:1 0/0/4
16 7 6:0 0/0/4
17 7 7:0 2/1/1
18 7 8:30 2/2/1
19 7 19:0 2/3/1
20 7 22:0 0/0/4
Page 5 of 9
AUX. Events
Special Function Outputs
87654321Dimming
Det.
Mult100
D3
Det.
Rpt.
D2
Det.
Diag.
D1
Aux Ouputs
321Min.Hour
Program
DayEvent
1 1 0 1 X X
2 1 6 0 X
3 1 18 0 X X
4 2 0 1 X X
5 2 6 0 X
6 2 18 0 X X
7 7 0 1 X X
8 7 6 0 X
9 7 18 0 X X
Default Data - No Special Day(s) or Week(s) Programmed
Special Functions
SF8SF7SF6SF5SF4SF3SF2SF1Function
Special Function 1 X
Special Function 2 X
Special Function 3 X
Special Function 4 X
Special Function 5 X
Special Function 6 X
Special Function 7 X
Special Function 8 X
Phase Function
PF16PF15PF14PF13PF12PF11PF10PF9PF8PF7PF6PF5PF4PF3PF2PF1Phase Function Map
Phase 1 Max2 X
Phase 2 Max2 X
Phase 3 Max2 X
Phase 4 Max2 X
Phase 5 Max2 X
Phase 6 Max2 X
Phase 7 Max2 X
Phase 8 Max2 X
Phase 1 Phase Omit X
Phase 2 Phase Omit X
Phase 3 Phase Omit X
Phase 4 Phase Omit X
Phase 5 Phase Omit X
Phase 6 Phase Omit X
Phase 7 Phase Omit X
Phase 8 Phase Omit X
Page 6 of 9
Dimming Data
Channel Red Yellow Green Alternate
Default Data - No Dimming Programmed
Preemption Data
General Preemption Data
Min Grn/Walk TimeRing
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
Flash = Preempt 1
Preepmt 1 = Preempt 2
Preepmt 2 = Preempt 3
Preepmt 3 = Preempt 4
Preepmt 4 = Preempt 5
Preepmt 5 = Preempt 6
Non-
LockingPreempt Link to
Preempt Delay Extend Duration MaxCall Lock-Out
Ped
Clear Yel Red
Select
Grn Ped Yel Red
Track Dwell
Green
Ped
Clear Yel Red
ReturnPreempt Timers
1 No 0 0 0 0 90 0 50 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0
2 No 0 0 0 0 90 0 50 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0
3 No 0 0 0 0 90 0 50 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0
4 No 0 0 0 0 90 0 50 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0
5 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.0 2.0 10 8 4.0 2.0 10 8 4.0 2.0
6 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.0 2.0 10 8 4.0 2.0 10 8 4.0 2.0
Preempt 1
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
2 Yes No
6 Yes No
Preempt 2
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
4 Yes No
8 Yes No
Preempt 3
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
2 Yes No
6 Yes No
Preempt 4
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
4 Yes No
8 Yes No
Preempt 5
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
1 No Yes
2 No Yes
3 No Yes
4 No Yes
5 No Yes
6 No Yes
7 No Yes
8 No Yes
Preempt 6
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
1 No Yes
2 No Yes
3 No Yes
4 No Yes
5 No Yes
6 No Yes
7 No Yes
8 No Yes
Non-LockingPriority Delay Extend Duration Max_Call Lock-Out Skip PhasesDwell
Priority Timers
1 No 0 0 0 0 0 0=Do not Skip Phases 0
2 No 0 0 0 0 0 0=Do not Skip Phases 0
3 No 0 0 0 0 0 0=Do not Skip Phases 0
4 No 0 0 0 0 0 0=Do not Skip Phases 0
5 No 0 0 0 0 0 0=Do not Skip Phases 0
6 No 0 0 0 0 0 0=Do not Skip Phases 0
Priority 1
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
Priority 2
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
Priority 3
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
Priority 4
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
Priority 5
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
Priority 6
Exit
PhasePhase
Exit
Calls
Page 7 of 9
Preempt 1
Vehical Phases
Ph. Track Dwell Cycle
1 Red Green No
6 Red Green No
Pedestrian Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh
Default Data
Overlaps
Ovlp Track Dwell Cycle
Default Data
Preempt 2
Vehical Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
3 Red Green No
8 Red Green No
Pedestrian Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
Default Data
Overlaps
CycleDwellTrackOvlp.
Default Data
Preempt 3
Vehical Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
2 Red Green No
5 Red Green No
Pedestrian Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
Default Data
Overlaps
CycleDwellTrackOvlp.
Default Data
Preempt 4
Vehical Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
4 Red Green No
7 Red Green No
Pedestrian Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
Default Data
Overlaps
CycleDwellTrackOvlp.
NoGrnRed 2
Preempt 5
Vehical Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
Default Data
Pedestrian Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
Default Data
Overlaps
CycleDwellTrackOvlp.
Default Data
Preempt 6
Vehical Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
Default Data
Pedestrian Phases
CycleDwellTrackPh.
Default Data
Overlaps
CycleDwellTrackOvlp.
Default Data
Local Free: No
Local Fash: No
Cycle Failure: No
Cycle Fault: No Coord Fault: No
Coord Failure: No Conflict Flash: Yes
Premption: Yes
Remote Flash: No
Voltage Monitor:
YesSpecial Status 1: Yes Special Status 2: Yes Special Status 3: No Special Status 4: No Special Status 5: No Special Status 6: No
Revert to Backup: 15 1st Phone:
2nd Phone:
Local Critical Alarms
System/Detectors Data
Traffic Responsive
Detector
Channel
System
Detector
Min
Volume %
Occupancy
Correction/10
Average
Time(mins)Veh/Hr
Default Data
Weight
Factor
System
Detectors
Queue 1
Detectors
Default Data
Weight
Factor
System
Detectors
Queue 2
Detectors
Default Data
Detector Failed Level : 0
Input Selection: 0=AverageQueue: 1
Detector Failed Level : 0
Input Selection: 0=AverageQueue: 2
Level Enter Leave Dial / Split / Offset
Queue:
/ /
Default Data
Sample Interval:
Page 8 of 9
Vehical Detector
Diagnostic Value 0
Erratic
Count
No
Activity
Max
PresenceDetector
1 30 180 60
2 30 180 60
3 30 180 60
4 30 180 60
5 30 180 60
6 30 180 60
7 30 180 60
8 30 180 60
Vehical Detector
Diagnostic Value 1
Erratic
Count
No
Activity
Max
PresenceDetector
1 30 180 60
2 30 0 60
3 30 0 60
4 30 180 60
5 30 180 60
6 30 0 60
7 30 0 60
8 30 0 60
Special Detector
Diagnostic Value 0
Erratic
Count
No
Activity
Max
PresenceDetector
Default Data - No Diag 0 Valu
Pedestrian Detector
Diagnostic Value 1
Erratic
Count
No
Activity
Max
PresenceDetector
1 5 0 0
2 5 0 0
3 5 0 0
4 5 0 0
5 5 0 0
6 5 0 0
7 5 0 0
8 5 0 0
Default Data - No Diag 1 Values
Pedestrian Detector
Diagnostic Value 0
Erratic
Count
No
Activity
Max
PresenceDetector
1 5 0 0
2 5 0 0
3 5 0 0
4 5 0 0
5 5 0 0
6 5 0 0
7 5 0 0
8 5 0 0
Default Data - No Diag 0 Values
Special Detector
Diagnostic Value 1
Erratic
Count
No
Activity
Max
PresenceDetector
Default Data - No Diag 1 Values
Speed Trap Data
Speed Trap:
Measurement:
Distance : Detector_2Detector 1
Default Data
Speed Trap
High Treshold
Speed Trap
Low TresholdDial/Split/Offset
//
Default Data
Volume Detector Data
Report Interval
Controller
Detector
Channel
Volume
Detector
Number
Default Data
Page 9 of 9
APPENDIX C
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016
2016 Exisitng Synchro 9 Report
PM Peak-Hour Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 181 2807 253 114 1382 44 159 73 394 43 82 155
Future Volume (vph) 181 2807 253 114 1382 44 159 73 394 43 82 155
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 0
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 50
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 5036 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 1599 1752 1743 1553
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 5036 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 1599 1752 1743 1553
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 136 184 177 177
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1119 989 1262 561
Travel Time (s) 25.4 22.5 28.7 12.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 7% 4% 5% 0% 5% 0% 1% 3% 9% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 189 2924 264 119 1440 46 166 76 410 45 85 161
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 2924 264 119 1440 46 166 76 410 45 85 161
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6284
Detector Phase 166522388744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 12.0 25.0 25.0 12.0 25.0 25.0 13.0 26.0 26.0 12.1 25.1 25.1
Total Split (s) 27.0 88.0 88.0 17.0 78.0 78.0 18.0 37.0 37.0 18.0 37.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 16.9% 55.0% 55.0% 10.6% 48.8% 48.8% 11.3% 23.1% 23.1% 11.3% 23.1% 23.1%
Maximum Green (s) 20.0 81.0 81.0 10.0 71.0 71.0 10.0 29.0 29.0 10.9 29.9 29.9
Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 14.0 86.0 86.0 9.5 81.5 81.5 10.0 29.0 29.0 9.0 25.4 25.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.16 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.62 1.08 0.30 0.59 0.57 0.05 0.80 0.12 0.94 0.46 0.31 0.41
Control Delay 79.3 79.3 11.4 85.9 29.7 0.1 100.0 55.1 67.1 87.3 60.5 8.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016
2016 Exisitng Synchro 9 Report
PM Peak-Hour Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Total Delay 79.3 79.3 11.4 85.9 29.7 0.1 100.0 55.1 67.1 87.3 60.5 8.3
LOS EEBFCAFEEFEA
Approach Delay 74.0 33.0 74.1 35.8
Approach LOS E C E D
Queue Length 50th (ft) 100 ~1309 72 63 398 0 90 35 259 46 77 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 140 #1378 136 100 469 0 #151 61 #478 91 132 51
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1039 909 1182 481
Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275
Base Capacity (vph) 433 2705 873 210 2515 912 208 671 441 119 325 434
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 1.08 0.30 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.80 0.11 0.93 0.38 0.26 0.37
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 160
Actuated Cycle Length: 160
Offset: 16 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 140
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08
Intersection Signal Delay: 61.1 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.2% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016
2019 Background Synchro 9 Report
PM Peak-Hour Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174
Future Volume (vph) 204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 0
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 50
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 5036 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 1599 1752 1743 1553
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 5036 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 1599 1752 1743 1553
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 136 184 177 177
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1119 989 1262 561
Travel Time (s) 25.4 22.5 28.7 12.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 7% 4% 5% 0% 5% 0% 1% 3% 9% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 213 3289 297 133 1620 51 186 85 461 50 96 181
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 213 3289 297 133 1620 51 186 85 461 50 96 181
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6284
Detector Phase 166522388744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 12.0 25.0 25.0 12.0 25.0 25.0 13.0 26.0 26.0 12.1 25.1 25.1
Total Split (s) 27.0 88.0 88.0 17.0 78.0 78.0 18.0 37.0 37.0 18.0 37.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 16.9% 55.0% 55.0% 10.6% 48.8% 48.8% 11.3% 23.1% 23.1% 11.3% 23.1% 23.1%
Maximum Green (s) 20.0 81.0 81.0 10.0 71.0 71.0 10.0 29.0 29.0 10.9 29.9 29.9
Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 15.1 81.3 81.3 9.7 75.9 75.9 10.0 33.3 33.3 9.2 29.9 29.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.19 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.65 1.29 0.36 0.66 0.69 0.06 0.89 0.11 0.98 0.50 0.30 0.42
Control Delay 79.2 165.6 13.5 89.0 35.2 0.1 113.0 54.1 73.7 89.5 58.9 10.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016
2019 Background Synchro 9 Report
PM Peak-Hour Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Total Delay 79.2 165.6 13.5 89.0 35.2 0.1 113.0 54.1 73.7 89.5 58.9 10.8
LOS EFBFDAFDEFEB
Approach Delay 148.9 38.2 81.4 37.0
Approach LOS F D F D
Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 ~1599 95 71 479 0 101 39 ~359 52 88 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 155 #1657 165 110 561 0 #177 66 #598 100 147 74
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1039 909 1182 481
Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275
Base Capacity (vph) 433 2559 834 210 2343 862 208 751 472 119 325 434
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 1.29 0.36 0.63 0.69 0.06 0.89 0.11 0.98 0.42 0.30 0.42
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 160
Actuated Cycle Length: 160
Offset: 16 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.29
Intersection Signal Delay: 106.0 Intersection LOS: F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.0% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016
2019 Background with Improvements Synchro 9 Report
PM Peak-Hour Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174
Future Volume (vph) 204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 0
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 50
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 6346 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 2814 1752 1743 1553
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 6346 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 2814 1752 1743 1553
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 169 130 252 136
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1119 989 1262 561
Travel Time (s) 25.4 22.5 28.7 12.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 7% 4% 5% 0% 5% 0% 1% 3% 9% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 213 3289 297 133 1620 51 186 85 461 50 96 181
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 213 3289 297 133 1620 51 186 85 461 50 96 181
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6284
Detector Phase 166522388744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 12.0 25.0 25.0 12.0 25.0 25.0 13.0 26.0 26.0 12.1 25.1 25.1
Total Split (s) 22.0 94.0 94.0 18.0 90.0 90.0 22.9 32.5 32.5 15.5 25.1 25.1
Total Split (%) 13.8% 58.8% 58.8% 11.3% 56.3% 56.3% 14.3% 20.3% 20.3% 9.7% 15.7% 15.7%
Maximum Green (s) 15.0 87.0 87.0 11.0 83.0 83.0 14.9 24.5 24.5 8.4 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 14.3 92.9 92.9 10.8 89.4 89.4 13.4 21.9 21.9 7.9 13.8 13.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.56 0.56 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.09 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.89 0.31 0.59 0.59 0.05 0.67 0.17 0.77 0.58 0.64 0.70
Control Delay 82.5 34.0 8.6 83.0 25.1 0.1 83.1 62.0 38.9 100.2 89.2 34.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016
2019 Background with Improvements Synchro 9 Report
PM Peak-Hour Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Total Delay 82.5 34.0 8.6 83.0 25.1 0.1 83.1 62.0 38.9 100.2 89.2 34.7
LOS FCAFCAFEDFFC
Approach Delay 34.8 28.6 52.8 60.8
Approach LOS C C D E
Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 870 61 70 407 0 98 42 125 52 99 45
Queue Length 95th (ft) 159 968 128 109 486 0 142 69 193 #106 161 130
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1039 909 1182 481
Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275
Base Capacity (vph) 333 3684 946 241 2761 960 310 559 649 91 196 295
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.89 0.31 0.55 0.59 0.05 0.60 0.15 0.71 0.55 0.49 0.61
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 160
Actuated Cycle Length: 160
Offset: 16 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.89
Intersection Signal Delay: 36.4 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016
2019 Total Synchro 9 Report
PM Peak-Hour Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 204 3243 285 214 1555 49 272 94 443 48 103 174
Future Volume (vph) 204 3243 285 214 1555 49 272 94 443 48 103 174
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 0
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 50
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 6346 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 2814 1752 1743 1553
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 6346 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 2814 1752 1743 1553
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 164 130 252 131
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1119 989 1262 561
Travel Time (s) 25.4 22.5 28.7 12.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 7% 4% 5% 0% 5% 0% 1% 3% 9% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 213 3378 297 223 1620 51 283 98 461 50 107 181
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 213 3378 297 223 1620 51 283 98 461 50 107 181
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6284
Detector Phase 166522388744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 12.0 25.0 25.0 12.0 25.0 25.0 13.0 26.0 26.0 12.1 25.1 25.1
Total Split (s) 22.0 94.0 94.0 18.0 90.0 90.0 22.9 32.5 32.5 15.5 25.1 25.1
Total Split (%) 13.8% 58.8% 58.8% 11.3% 56.3% 56.3% 14.3% 20.3% 20.3% 9.7% 15.7% 15.7%
Maximum Green (s) 15.0 87.0 87.0 11.0 83.0 83.0 14.9 24.5 24.5 8.4 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 14.1 88.0 88.0 13.4 87.4 87.4 14.9 24.1 24.1 7.9 14.5 14.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.08 0.55 0.55 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.09 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.97 0.33 0.79 0.60 0.05 0.91 0.18 0.72 0.58 0.68 0.70
Control Delay 83.5 44.1 9.5 90.7 26.2 0.1 104.0 60.9 36.2 100.2 90.9 35.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016
2019 Total Synchro 9 Report
PM Peak-Hour Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Total Delay 83.5 44.1 9.5 90.7 26.2 0.1 104.0 60.9 36.2 100.2 90.9 35.8
LOS FDAFCAFEDFFD
Approach Delay 43.6 33.1 61.9 62.8
Approach LOS D C E E
Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 977 69 119 418 0 154 48 123 52 110 50
Queue Length 95th (ft) 159 1022 131 #212 486 0 #243 78 193 #106 177 136
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1039 909 1182 481
Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275
Base Capacity (vph) 328 3491 904 282 2698 941 310 583 666 91 196 290
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.65 0.97 0.33 0.79 0.60 0.05 0.91 0.17 0.69 0.55 0.55 0.62
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 160
Actuated Cycle Length: 160
Offset: 16 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97
Intersection Signal Delay: 43.9 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd
1
SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR
LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
No school impact analysis is required for this commercial development.
1
January 9, 2017
EXHIBIT F
Proposed GMPA Text Amendment Language
This amendment will create a new sub-district in the Collier County GMP
as follows:
Logan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict
This Subdistrict consists of ±18.6 acres and is located at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. The
Subdistrict allows those uses permitted by right and by conditional use
within the C-4, General Commercial, Zoning District as listed in the Collier
County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, in
effect as of the adoption of the Subdistrict. Development within this
Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district which
must contain development and design standards to ensure that all
commercial uses will be compatible with the neighboring uses.
This Subdistrict is intended to serve the surrounding residential uses within a
convenient travel distance to the subject property. Bicycle and
pedestrian access to the adjacent properties will be pursued to the extent
feasible and practical to encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian
use.
The maximum development intensity allowed is 100,000 square feet of
gross floor area.
Policy 1.1:
The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use
Districts and Subdistricts for:
B. URBAN - COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict
3. Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict
4. Business Park Subdistrict
5. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict
6. Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict
7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict
2
January 9, 2017
8. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict
9. Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill
Subdistrict
10. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict
11. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict
12. Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict
FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES
Future Land Use Map
Activity Center Index Map
Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps
Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12) Maps
Collier County Wetlands Map
Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields
and ASRs Map
Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains
Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays
Future Land Use Map Soils
Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map
Stewardship Overlay Map
Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps
North Belle Meade Overlay Map
North Belle Meade Overlay Map Section 24
Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map
Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map
Plantation Island Urban Area Map
Copeland Urban Area Map
Railhead Scrub Preserve – Conservation Designation Map
Lely Mitigation Park – Conservation Designation Map
Margood Park Conservation Designation Map
Urban Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map
Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map
Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map
Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map
Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map
Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map
Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map
Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map
Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map
Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map
Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict
3
January 9, 2017
Livingston Road/Veteran’s Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill
Subdistrict Map
Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map
Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map
Coastal High Hazard Area Map
Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map
Gordon River Greenway Conservation Area Designation Map
Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map
Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map
Davis ‒ Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map
Logan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict
1
DEVIATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
FOR
LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD
Deviation #1: 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.c. which
permits a maximum sign area of 80 s.f. to allow for a maximum sign area of 160 s.f.
(please see illustration on Exhibit G). The copy area will contain only the project
name (to be determined) with no tenant information allowed.
Justification #1: This element as proposed is generally an aesthetic and design
enhancement to create a project identification sign to establish a ‘sense of place’
for the project and the surrounding neighborhood. The copy area will be limited to
160 square feet and no tenants or businesses will be advertised on this sign. An
elevation of the proposed project identification sign (Exhibit G) is attached to this
document.
Deviation #2: 1. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.2.b. to permit a
single ground sign up to eight feet in height and 60 square feet for each of the
buildings identified on the MCP as Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4, regardless of whether each
building lies on a separate, platted outparcel.
Justification #2: This deviation allows for Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 as shown on the MCP
to have pole or ground signs just as if they were stand-alone outparcels. Each
building if part of a platted lot would meet the minimum frontage requirements for
signage but since they will not be on separately platted lots, this deviation is
required.
Deviation #3: Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.a., “Buffer
Requirements,” which requires trees to be spaced no more than 30 feet on center in
the landscape buffer abutting the right-of-way or primary access road internal to a
development, to exceed the minimum spacing requirement to permit the clustering
of the required trees within the perimeter landscape buffer between Buildings 2 and
3, provided that spacing shall be no greater than 60’ between required trees or
clusters of trees. While this deviation allows clustering, the minimum number of LDC
required trees in the subject buffer shall not be reduced.
Justification #3: Consistent with Deviation request #1, the expense of creating the
water feature and project identification sign to provide an up-scale feel and ‘sense
of place’ would be negatively impacted without the ability to cluster trees and
palms in a way that does not reduce the minimum number of trees but still preserves
key views of the hardscape and water scape at the corner. This deviation is
intended to increase distance between trees or clusters of tees in a limited area to
promote a high-quality design element and to allow for flexibility in design without
reducing the number, height or quality of landscaping required by the LDC.
Immokalee Road Associates (GL)
Neighborhood Information Meeting
March 6, 2017
Growth Management Plan Amendment Petition
PL2016-0001100 / CP-2016-2
Logan /Immokalee Commercial Infill Subdistrict
Naples Garden Shops Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) Rezone Application
PL2016-0001089
NAPLES GARDEN SHOPS
IMMOKALEE ROAD
Master Plan
18.6 Acres
Out-Parcels 1 thru 4 22,716 SF
Grocery 33,000 SF
Retail 44,284 SF
Parking Provided = 655
Lake Area = 2.12 Acres or 11.40%
Preserve Area = 1.10 Acres or 5.91%
Immokalee Road
NAPLES GARDEN SHOPS
PROHIBITED USES
Future Land Use Element –Ordinance No. 2016-15 adopted May 24, 2016
Future Land Use Element –Ordinance No. 2016-15 adopted May 24, 2016
Future Land Use Element –Ordinance No. 2016-15 adopted May 24, 2016
Future Land Use Element –Ordinance No. 2016-15 adopted May 24, 2016
Proposed Lighting Details
Transportation Analysis
The applicant has filed a detailed Traffic
Impact Statement based on a maximum of
100,000 square feet of Shopping Center Use.
What are the impacts to the road network?
I-75Logan Blvd5%5%
14 16
58 20%
25%78 40%124 58 20%40%115 Immokalee Rd 20%58
25%72 40%115 173 40%124 40%124 20%62
60%
124
25%45%599 Total 15%15%
72 140 288 Enter 47 43
311 Exit
15%15%
47 43
5%16 5%14
5%14 5%16 Vanderbilt Beach Rd
5%5%
16 14
Distribution - Total Trips
100,000 SqFt Collier BlvdAM 2,220 vph
AM 895 vph
PM 1,316 vph
PM 1,889 vph
AM 603 vphPM 312 vphAM 312 vphPM 602 vph
Questions?
OPENING SLIDE
Good Evening and thank you for taking time out of your week to join us
tonight. I’m Tim Hancock with Stantec and am the Planner for this
project. Before starting our presentation, I would like to get a couple
safety items out of the way. In the very unlikely event that we would
need to evacuate the building at any time, the emergency exits are
located ________________________________. In addition, restrooms
are located _________________________________________should
you wish to make use of them. We also have several members of our
project team here to address any questions you may have.
With GL, we have:
Kevin Ratterree, and Michael Friedman. These gentlemen are
responsible for the design, development and leasing of the proposed
project.
As I mentioned, I am the project planner and am responsible for the
filing of the applications and making sure we provide Collier County
with the necessary information to show how the project complies with
existing rules and regulations as well as how the project achieves
consistency and compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
Also present this evening, also with Stantec is Mr. Jeff Perry, the
Transportation Planner for the project. Jeff prepares the analysis and
calculations that help in determining the potential traffic impacts from
the project and will be available to address your questions or concerns
as well.
Also here this evening are the key reviewers with Collier County for this
project. This meeting is being held to cover two applications that have
been filed with Collier County. One is an amendment to the County
Growth Management Plan to re-designate the property from its current
designation of the Urban Residential Sub district to the Logan
Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Sub district. The County
GMP is an overall umbrella plan that identifies areas for future
development such as residential uses, commercial uses, schools and so
forth. As our community grows and evolves, it is sometimes necessary
to amend the GMP to keep pace with needs of the community. The
County Planner with the Comprehensive Planning department that is
primarily responsible for the review of the GMPA application is Mr.
Corby Schmidt. We also have a companion rezone application that has
been filed and these two applications work together to not just address
what uses are allowed on the property but the Commercial PUD
application also identifies the type of development, required setbacks,
landscape buffers, building heights, etc. so that you know with a higher
degree of specificity exactly what is being planned for this property.
The Planner primarily responsible for the review of the rezoning
application is Mr. Daniel Smith. While we are here to present the
project to you, these gentlemen will also be able to address any
questions you may have about the process and timing of things going
forward.
Copies of both the proposed GMP Amendment language as well as the
CPUD document in its current form are available at the sign in table as
you came in so feel free to pick up a copy of these as you leave if you
didn’t get them when you came in.
(NAPLES GARDEN SHOPS SLIDE)
To date, the project has been referred to as the Naples Garden Shops
but we have been informed by the County that due to similarly named
projects elsewhere in the County, we will need to find a new name
which is something we are currently working on and if you have any
suggestions, please feel free to share them!
(AERIAL SLIDE)
The project consists of 18.6 acres of land as shown on this exhibit as the
6 parcels located at the southwest corner of Logan Boulevard and
Immokalee Road. There are two roughly 10 acre parcels to our east
before you get to the entrance to Saturnia Lakes and an active nursery
and landscape business immediately to our south.
To explain the project in more detail, I would like to introduce Mr.
Kevin Ratterree with GL. Kevin is going to share with you a number of
site plans, elevations, and visual concepts to help illustrate how GL
intends to develop the property. There may be through the course of
permitting some minor changes to the layout or building design to
ensure compliance with Collier County codes, but GL is comfortable in
sharing with you some detailed concepts so you can better understand
the intent and direction this project is going to take.
(TURN IT OVER TO KEVIN)
(KEVIN TURNS IT OVER TO JEFF PERRY)
JEFF PERRY TURNS IT BACK OVER TO KEVIN
Wrap Up.
Questions?
Dear Property Owner:
Please be advised that the sender, on behalf of the property owner, Immokalee Road Associates, LLC, has
filed an application to amend the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This application proposes to create
the Logan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, a new Future Land Use classification.
As currently structured, the proposed subdistrict will permit a mix of commercial uses that are permitted by
right and/or conditional use within the C-3 zoning district with some less intensive C-4 uses also being
permitted. A PUD rezone application has been submitted for concurrent review with the GMP application
to address additional site specific design considerations included limitations on land uses and defining
specific development standards for the project. The proposed limitation of 100,000 square feet of
commercial uses on the 18.6± acre area provides for a lower intensity development to serve the
surrounding community without creating compatibility concerns for the adjacent properties. The Master
Concept Plan also includes extensive buffering and setbacks to further promote compatibility.
In compliance with the Land Development Code, and in order to provide you an opportunity to become
fully aware of our requests to develop the described property as indicated above and to give you an
opportunity to influence the form of development intended, we are holding a Neighborhood Information
Meeting. The meeting will be held on Monday, March 6, 2017 beginning at 5:30pm at St. Monica’s
Episcopal Church, 7070 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida.
At this meeting both the Growth Management Plan Amendment and the Commercial PUD rezone will be
presented and we will make every effort to illustrate how we intend to develop the property. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at (239) 649-4040 or via e-mail at tim.hancock@stantec.com if you have any
questions regarding the meeting or the proposed project.
Sincerely yours,
Tim Hancock, AICP
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300
Naples, FL 34108
14A Friday, February 17, 2017 Naples Daily News +
ND-1461115
643-2559 933 Airport Rd.S,Naples,FL 34104
3.5 blks.N.of Davis,1 blk S.of Naples Airport
Open Sun 1-5pm •Mon.-Sat.10am-6pm
all widths AAAA -EEEE custom fi tting by trained factory sales staff.
Wo rld’s largest selection of comfort fashion
sandals &shoes...
NAOT,Mephisto,Ta ryn Rose,Helle Comfort,Wolky,
Cole Haan,Thierry Rabotin,Beautifeel,Sperry,Ecco,
Birkenstock,Florsheim,Finn Comfort,New Balance,
SAS,Saucony,Asics,Sebago,Hushpuppy,Te va,Merrell,
Fit Flop,Orthaheel,Acorn Slippers and many more...
Fa mily Owned and Operated for 65 Ye ars
Naples Oldest Shoe Store
Must present Coupon
at time of purchase.
Not valid with any other offer.
Expires 2-28-17
15$
OFF
COUPONCOUPON
Jonathan Fr antz,MD,FAC S
BEST CATA RACT SURGEON*
NowOffering Dropless Laser Cataract Surgery
239.430.3939
BetterVision.net
FORT MYERS •CAPE CO RAL •PUNTAGORDA •LEHIGH ACRES •NAPLES
2100 Tamiami Tra il North
Naples, FL 34102
Call for Your VIP
Cataract Evaluation
*As voted by News-Press Readers
Stop in soon to see the spectacular 2017 Spring Collection!Stop in soon to see the spectacular 2017 Spring Collection!
What’s inWhat’s in youryour closet?closet?
NEIGHBORHOOD
INFORMATION MEETING
The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by the applicant,
Immokalee Road Associates,LLC.,represented by Tim Hancock of Stantec
and R.Bruce Anderson of Cheffy Passidomo.
Monday,March 6,2017 beginning at 5:30pm
St.Monica’s Episcopal Church
7070 Immokalee Road,Naples,FL
Please be advised that the property owner,Immokalee Road Associates,
LLC,has filed an application to amend the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
This application proposes to create the Logan Boulevard /Immokalee Road
Commercial Infill Subdistrict,a new Future Land Use classification.As currently
structured,the proposed subdistrict will permit a mix of commercial uses that
are permitted by right and/or conditional use within the C-3 zoning district with
some less intensive C-4 uses also being permitted.A PUD rezone application
has been submitted for concurrent review with the GMP application to address
additional site specific design considerations including limitations on land uses
and defining specific development standards for the project.The proposed
limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial uses on the 18.6±acre area
provides for a lower intensity development to serve the surrounding community
without creating compatibility concerns for the adjacent properties.The Master
Concept Plan also includes extensive buffering and setbacks to further promote
compatibility.
Business and property owners,residents and visitors are welcome to attend
the presentation and discuss the project,the GMP amendment process and the
Commercial Planned Unit Development rezone with the owner/developer and
Collier County staff.If you are unable to attend this meeting but have questions
or comments,they can be directed by mail,phone,fax,or e-mail by Friday
March 3,2017.
Tim Hancock,AICP
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard,Suite 300
Naples,Florida 34108
Phone (239)649-4040 Fax:(239)643-5716
Email:tim.hancock@stantec.com
February 17,2017 NO.1487484
Susan Martin, former interim president
at San Jose State University and former
president at Eastern Michigan Univer-
sity;
»Mark McLellan, vice president for
research and dean of the School of Gradu-
ate Studies at Utah State University;
»Mark Rudin, vice president for re-
search and economic development at Boi-
se State University.
The semifinalists needed the support
of 10 committee members to be consid-
ered for the next round of the process.
All 15 committee members voted to
send Rudin and Michael Martin to the fi-
nal round.
Committee members spoke highly of
Michael Martin when they began sharing
how they thought the candidates did dur-
ing the interview process.
FGCU is concerned it might lose more
than $8 million in performance-based
funding this year, and Michael Martin led
LSU through some difficult budget years.
“What I was impressed with was his ex-
perience at LSU,” committee member
Lindsay Harrington said. “We may have
that challenge before us, and he will be
able to meet that challenge with wisdom
and experience.”
Committee members described Rudin
as being well-prepared, student-centered
and a well-rounded candidate with a presi-
dential presence.
Mark McLellan made it to the finalist
round with a vote of 13-2, and Susan Mar-
tin made it with a 14-1 vote.
McLellan was described as an out-of-
the-box thinker during the committee’s
discussion.
“I really felt like he was an idea guy, but
a person who could get things done,” said
Robert Gregerson, a committee member.
Susan Martin also was given a good re-
view as a candidate.
“I thought she interviewed very well,
pretty well-rounded,” said Sharon Isern, a
committee member. “I like the fact that
she had gotten involved on campus and off
campus.”
Susan Martin was asked during the in-
terview about a reprimand she received
in 2012 as president at Eastern Michigan.
The Michigan Board of Regents sent Mar-
tin a letter expressing concern about an
exchange she had with someone after con-
suming wine.
“I did respond using one profane
word,” she said. “That is my crime. If I
were a man, I think I might have gotten
away with it.
“But I did make a mistake. It was un-
presidential, and I apologized for it. I think
the reprimand was extreme and respon-
ded in writing firmly that I disagreed with
it.”
In Susan Martin’s letter, she disclosed
she reported to the Michigan board when
she was hired that she had been cited for
driving while impaired in 2005.
The four candidates will be invited to
FGCU to participate in forums set for next
Wednesday and Thursday on campus.
The FGCU Board of Trustees will pick
the school’s president Feb. 28.
“I think they are all high-quality indi-
viduals,” said Ken Smith, chairman of the
search committee. “I think you heard the
committee say that they could see any of
them as the next president, which I think
is important as they go to the board.”
The Florida Board of Governors will be
asked to confirm the FGCU board’s pick in
late March.
The new leader will succeed Wilson
Bradshaw, who has been FGCU’s presi-
dent since 2007. Bradshaw plans to step
down June 30.
FGCU began searching for a leader
last year. The search hit a snag in Novem-
ber when the committee interviewed
eight semifinalists and only picked two fi-
nalists.
That was not enough candidates for the
search to proceed to the next round. The
committee was told to reconvene, inter-
view more candidates and add more
names to the finalist list.
The finalists the committee picked in
November ended up withdrawing their
names from consideration.
“I thought that candidates that were
advanced the second round were excel-
lent,” Isern said. “They are experienced
academic leaders, and I think anyone of
them would serve well as FGCU’s next
president.”
When the committee began discussing
which of the nine semifinalists to ad-
vance, it spent the most time discussing
former state Rep. Tom Grady, who is a Na-
ples attorney.
Many FGCU faculty and staff mem-
bers, students and some former gradu-
ates were concerned about Grady getting
the job. One concern was Grady has no ex-
perience as a leader in higher education.
Only four committee members wanted
Grady, a state Board of Education mem-
ber and former FGCU trustee, to move to
the final round.
Harrington said he thought Grady
might have made a good leader for FGCU.
“I voted to advance him because I think
the university needs to be stimulated,” he
said. “People need to start thinking out-
FGCU leader
Continued from Page 1A
Published DailyNaples, FL 34110
Affi davit of PublicationState of FloridaCounties of Collier and Lee
Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier Coun-ty, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affi ant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post offi ce in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of one year next pre-ceding the fi rst publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affi ant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.___________________________________________________________Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.#_____________________________________________________________________________________
STANTEC 1487484 NIM
Pub Dates
February 17, 2017
_______________________________________
(Signature of affi ant)
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This February 24, 2017
_______________________________________
(Signature of affi ant)
_______________________________________
(Signature of affi ant)
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This February 24, 2017
_______________________________________
(Signature of affi ant)
170306_0020 Page 2 of 33
Tim Hancock: Well, my iPhone time I have 5:32 and I think that's official. My name's Tim
Hancock with Stantec. We do have a microphone available, but can everyone
hear my voice okay?
Audience: Yes.
Tim Hancock: Okay, great, sometimes the microphone actually makes it a little bit worse, but if
you have any problem hearing or understanding me or any of the presenters,
please just raise your hand, let us know, and we'll either speak up or use the
microphone.
I'm with Stantec, I'm the planner for this project. I have the pleasure of work
with GL in bringing this project to [inaudible]. Before starting the presentation, a
couple of quick safety items. In the event that we had to evacuate the building
for any reason, the exit is to your rear, there also is one down this hallway, and
one out this way as well. Not that I expect that to happen, this is not Naples High
School, but we should be okay nonetheless. Also, for you comfort and
convenience, restrooms are down this hallway, you don't need to raise your
hand and you don't need my permission, please help yourself if you need to use
the facilities.
I want to introduce members of our team that are here this evening with. With
Geo, we have Mr. Kevin Ratterree here in front, some of you have met him
before. We also have Mr. Michael Freedman. We've got a couple other folks with
GL, but we've told them we wouldn't make them say anything, so I'm not going
to introduce them. We also have with Stantec, Mr. Jeff Perry who's in charge of
our transportation planning. Jeff has the unenviable position of talking to you
about [inaudible 00:01:57] go and why. Wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy,
but Jeff prepared the analysis and calculations in helping to determine the
potential traffic impact from the project. In addition to making a presentation, he
also is here to answer any questions you may have. We also have reviewers with
Collier County.
The way this process works is, we develop and file an application, that
application is then reviewed by up to 14 or 15 county departments
simultaneously. We have two applications going forward and they're both
running concurrently, at the same time. The first one is an application to amend
the Collier county growth management plan. Now, the growth management plan
is an umbrella plan helps determine where particular types of land usage
makeup. For example, it may designate that commercial is appropriate here,
residential here, industrial here. As the county evolves and changes, that plan
gets amended periodically. Sometimes it's amended by the county, sometimes
it's amended by private land owners. So we have filed an application to amend
the plan, to take this 18.6 acre parcel and designate it from what it is currently,
urban residential, to what's call a commercial infill subdistrict. That application,
the lead reviewer for that is Mr. Corby Schmidt, who has got his hand up over
there. Corby works for Collier County, so I'd just like to tell you, if you have any
170306_0020 Page 3 of 33
problems with your commissioners, talk to Corby. Oh I'm sorry. I meant if you
love your commissioner, please talk to Corby. We are blessed with a good board,
but anyway, Corby is in the comprehensive planning department, they handle
the growth management plan side of things.
The second application we have is a rezone application. If the growth
management plan is an umbrella that says these are the types of usage you can
have, and I'm being very simplistic in this, the rezone delves into the details.
What are the setbacks, what are the building heights, what does it look like,
what are the specific usage you can have, and what are some of the usage you
can't have? So the zoning works with the growth management plan, in concert,
they have to be consistent with each other, and there's a separate county
department that reviews zoning applications. Our lead planner on that is Mr.
Daniel Smith.
Speaker 3: That's me and if you have any questions, call Corby.
Tim Hancock: Right.
Speaker 3: My card is out there, too. Me and Corby's card is out there.
Tim Hancock: Both Corby and Daniel did leave their cards out there, I have a stack of mine as
well afterwards if you want them, if you're trying to see who has the best hand
with your cards at the end of the night, feel free to come ask me for that, as well.
I'll kind of give you an overview. The process going forward is that the growth
management plan amendment tracks a little bit ahead of the zoning. The reason
is that the growth management plan amendment has two cycles. One is, it gets
reviewed by the local governing bodies and then it's transmitted to the State
Department of Economic Opportunity for review. They then send it back and
there's a second hearing for ultimate decision or adoption of that amendment.
The zoning only has one set of hearings. So the growth management plan will
actually have a hearing for transmittal, when it comes back, both the growth
management plan and the zoning will be heard at the same time.
So tonight's presentation deals with both applications because really, we need to
look at them together. One of them allows certain broad land, set of land uses
and the other one delves into the details, together they'll give you a clear picture
of exactly what is that's being requested [inaudible 00:05:38].
As you came in, there was a sign in sheet, if you did not sign in, please do so. It
helps us be able to record how many people were here and if you raised your
hand and said, "My name's John Smith and I've got a question," if I have your
information at the end, I can circle back to you through that contact sheet. So if
you didn't sign in, please do so before you leave tonight. Also on the table is a
copy of the exact wording of the growth management plan amendment that we
have requested and also is a copy of what's called the commercial planning unit
170306_0020 Page 4 of 33
development, or CPUD document, that's the zoning document, that's the one
with all the more meaty details in it. That is still in draft form, by the way, we
have made one submittal to the county and gotten comments back, we're
working on a re-submittal on that. So the growth management plan amendment
is pretty close to what we're going to see going forward. The CPUD document
may have a few more changes that go into it.
With that, I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Kevin Ratterree who is going to walk
you through the presentation for the project. Then Mr. Perry is going to give you
a little bit of transportation information. I'm going to wrap up with a few more
comments, and we're going to do our absolute best to have this wrapped up and
get you out of here, back home where we all want to be. Mr. Ratterree?
Kevin Ratterree: Thank you. Okay thank you Tim. Can everybody hear me?
Audience: Yes.
Kevin Ratterree: For those of you that don't know me, my name is Kevin Ratterree and I'm with
GL Homes, I work out of the corporate office [inaudible 00:07:07]. I work out of
the corporate office over on the east coast of Florida. I have been dealing with
the GL Naples division since its inception, I was part of the team that made the
decision to move to GL from the east coast over to the west coast. I was
intimately involved with the initial Saturnia Lakes project. I was intimately
involve with the Riverstone and obviously with Stone Creek, so I've had a lot of
history with GL relative to this particular corridor and know a lot about how
these approvals came about and the history of those. Instead of you trying to
remember how to spell my last name, I'm just going to tell you I have business
cards up here, but just think battery, Ratterree, for pronunciation which one of
my kids' teachers came up with that. If you want to spell it, think Tallahassee,
you're probably going to be pretty good. A lot of doubles in there.
Let me start off by saying, some you I recognize, I have been doing this traveling
road show for a while on this project. We have already presented it to Longshore
Lakes, Old Cypress, Saturnia Lakes, Riverstone. Part of this process, this
neighborhood information process, it's a little bit broader scale in getting to a
few more areas and geographic components that we haven't gotten to in terms
of the overall presentation. If you could, I know some of you have questions, if
you could just kind of let me get through the presentation, I found a lot of times I
answer your question as I go through. Then at the end, we're all here to answer
your questions as best we can. If you ask a question we don't know the answer
to, we'll take your name down and we'll get back to you when we get an answer
to that question. So just wanted to kind of go through that.
Let me start off with, that name, Naples Garden Shops, that's not going to be the
name. So the first slide in our presentation is wrong and the reason it's wrong is
because we have been told by Collier County that we cannot use the name
Naples Garden Shops. Naples and garden has been too used over here, so we
170306_0020 Page 5 of 33
need to come up with another name. So Michael Freedman over here will take
you to dinner if you want to give us a name and we end up using that name, we
will be happy to have Michael take you dinner on his tab. We'll be coming up
with another name as we discuss this project with the project planners and in-
house folks about it.
Let me just start off by geographically orienting everybody. This area in pink is
the 18.6 acre site that's the subject of the application. This is Logan boulevard
right here, this is Immokalee road right here. The estates are over here. The area
in blue is owned by Oakwood Park West, is the legal name, you may know it
more as Landscape Workaholics, LRM, Cullen Walker, who operates his
landscape maintenance service company out of this property here and also owns
this piece of property here. Mr. Walker also owned this little triangular piece
right here which was .99 acres in size, we bought that from Mr. Walker so it is
part of the GL Homes ownership, it's part of that the GL homes buildership, it
makes up the 18.6 acres. The reason we bought it relates to access, which will be
my next slide, but I wanted to kind of bring everybody up to speed with what
you're looking at here. Again, Mr. Walker here, Raymond Cleary owns this piece
of property here. Some of you may be aware that they have initiated some
discussions about doing a kind of group living facility, ALF type facility on that
site, but it has nothing do with our particular application. This is the main entry
for Saturnia Lakes right here, that's one of the northerly pods of Saturnia Lakes.
Geographically, everybody good? Everybody got what we're talking about here?
Okay, so instead of spending a lot of time trying to figure out the site plan, I'll get
to that in a minute. I brought this up to talk about access. We have two points of
proposed access to the site. One on the far easterly side of the site, fronting on
Immokalee, that will be a right in, right out only. So if you're traveling eastbound
on Immokalee, you will be able to take a right into the shopping center. If you're
in the shopping center, you'll be able to take a right out of the shopping center.
You bypass the Saturnia lights because there's no left turn. If you wanted to back
west, you would go to the next U-turn and take a U-turn.
The second point of ingress and egress is right here, it's on the extreme, and I'm
going to call it western side, southern side is across on Logan Boulevard. That
triangular piece that I was referring to earlier is that piece of property right
there. The reason we bought it from Mr. Walker was to get that access point as
far south as we possibly could with the goal of having a left turn in movement. So
if you're traveling on Logan boulevard, you would be able to take a left and go
into the center. It would have its normal right out, it would have its normal right
in. There is also discussion with Collier County about the possibility of a left out.
That left out depends entirely on whether Logan stays as a two lane road or
whether Logan ultimately gets built as a four lane road. We as GL, for those of
you who don't know the history, that built Logan Boulevard for the county, many
years ago, a little over $10 million, a little spare change for what we had going on
at the time. The whole point of that is that left out is a possibility while it is a two
170306_0020 Page 6 of 33
lane section, but they're kind of giving us warning that the left out will probably
go away if in fact they end up four lane in that roadway. Our project is not
tripping the need for the four lane, but the county at least has expressed some
interest in making sure that we understand from an access standpoint the left
out could go away. So that's the ingress, egress.
If you notice right here on the plan, there's a little arrow that goes to the east
and there's a little driveway connection that goes here. As part of our discussion
with Mr. Walker to buy that acre piece of property, that triangular piece, we also
wanted to set up future access to his properties so that in the event. Mr. Walker
decides to convert use, his access would be a connection point to right there, so
that we would have one common point of ingress and egress versus multiple
curb cuts along the roadway. That's really designed to kind of control the flow of
traffic from those several properties so that they're all coming in and out at one
geographic location.
Audience: Can you start over? Because everyone from Riverstone got sent to the wrong
location. Can you kind of recap what you just said?
Kevin Ratterree: Yeah, okay. Everybody here love what we're doing?
Audience: [crosstalk 00:14:22]
Kevin Ratterree: Did I summarize it good for you?
Audience: [crosstalk 00:14:30]
Kevin Ratterree: All right, I'm going to do it really quickly, if you don't mind, okay? This is the 18.6
acre site that's located on the southeast corner of Immokalee and Logan. Access,
one access point on Immokalee on the far east side and one access point on
Logan on the far west side up against Logan boulevard. That's as far as I've
gotten so far. A little more detail that I did and I'll do that after the meeting with
you, if you don't mind.
This is the overall plan of development. You may remember, for those of you
that have been around for a while, that a couple years ago there was an
application filed to change the land use on this property and seek commercial
zoning on it, and the rumor going around was that Lowe's was the interested
tenant for the site. So Saturnia Lakes, Old Cypress, and a couple other
communities were very fearful of that application. I don't want to speak for you
guys, but there was a lot of concern regarding that potential type of use. What
we're trying to do is bring in a very high end neighborhood scale shopping
center. What I mean by that is, what we're trying to do is make sure it is a
grocery anchored shopping center. That it's not designed to accommodate and
we are put in restrictions to preclude those big box tenants, like the Lowe's and
the Home Depots of the world, need to be able to fit on a commercial property.
170306_0020 Page 7 of 33
So when I say neighborhood scaled center, the prior application is seeking over
200,000 square feet of commercial space. We are going to limit this site to
100,000 square feet maximum retail site. We are also going to limit the scale of
the users, that no individual tenant can be over 45,000 square feet. The purpose
of that is to make sure that a Walmart, a Target, a Lowe's, a Home Depot, all of
those guys that need 75,000, 80,000, 100,000 plus, they can't locate on this
center. Again, the purpose of this is to accommodate the grocery anchor on a
neighborhood scale setup.
In sales, in Saturnia Lakes, in Riverstone, in Stone Creek, we have received a lot
of feedback over the years about there not being a higher end shopping center
that's designed to cater to some of the higher end neighborhoods that are in this
geographic area. With all due respect to Target down the street, and some of
those other users, it's really been something that we have heard on our sales
floor that we really want to see something that has a nice grocery store, it's got
great elevation, it looks good, it has restaurants that we want to go to, those
types of things. So again, the whole purpose of this application is to bring in that
neighborhood scale shopping center.
From the site plan, what you'll see again is the grocery anchor, this is a
Immokalee, this is Logan, we have put in the main retention area on the extreme
southern side of the site. The reason for that because if you recall from the
earlier graph that is Mr. Walker's property right there, but catty-corner to over
here is Saturnia Lakes, so we were trying to provide as much spatial separation
between Saturnia Lakes and where our buildings would start. In doing that, we
had kept that retention area, and a native preserve area, and a buffer along that
southern, eastern, and western side. Again, the access on Immokalee here, the
access on Logan, this being local retail, local restaurant space, and then we're
going to try anchor this corner with two restaurant pads, and I've got some
elevations to show you if we get through this process.
Again, goal number one is to limit the scale and size, we've done that by limiting
ourselves to 100,000 square feet. Goal number two was to make sure that we
couldn't accommodate, nor would we allow, a Home Depot or Lowe's scale
tenant in this space.
Again, talking about spatial separation, this is that cul de sac in Saturnia Lakes,
it's about 575 feet to the western side of that rear grocery store and about 525
feet from the eastern side of that store, just to give you a spatial separation.
This is the first of our elevations, again, disregard that name for a minute. I had a
little fun with this, [inaudible 00:19:12], these mountains back here [crosstalk
00:19:15], but they're here. [crosstalk 00:19:21] Some of our rendering guys have
a little fun sometimes, but this whole [inaudible 00:19:28] was designed to give
you orientation and scale. The pointer would be sitting at the corner of Logan
and Immokalee. So I referenced earlier those two restaurant pads in that corner
leg, those are those two restaurant pads, and directly across is the grocery
170306_0020 Page 8 of 33
anchor. So you get a scale, it's kind of set on a diagonal, which is a little different
than a traditional shopping center. Again, part of that is designed to kind of
create that neighborhood scale that we're trying to accommodate with this
application.
This is some of the local retail space. What you'll notice here is we're spending a
lot of time with the elevations of this site, coloring, we're carrying a lot of
stonework, we're carrying a lot of woodwork, we're making these part of the
application so that they're part of the review. Then we need a little bit of
flexibility depending how and what tenants we get in here, but the overall scale
and scheme of this is being set not only the land use amendment process, but
the zoning process.
Same picture, a little bit higher elevation. Again, notice try to deal with the
pedestrian scale here, a lot of landscaping, a lot of greenery, and again the
elevations to give you an idea of what we're trying to accomplish here. A lot of
paver work. Again, all of that is designed to bring that upscale amenity to the
area.
This is that corner, so the grocery store is going to be way over here to the right,
this is that corner over on Immokalee road side. Again, trying to accommodate
that local retail, local restaurant space.
Again, you'll notice we're spending a lot of time with a little open space area,
pedestrian scale, walk ability of the overall center. This is the grocery store front.
So, somebody's going to ask me, or all of you are going to ask me, who are your
tenants going to be? Okay. Let me start with the big one, which is the grocery
anchor. We are under a confidentiality agreement with one of those four right
there, okay? All right? So, everybody hear me? That will give you an idea of the
grocery anchor.
Audience: When you say confidentiality agreement, is this a signed deal that you're saying
is absolutely 100% done that is going to be one of those four candidates?
Kevin Ratterree: It is. Already gone through their real estate committee, their real estate
committee has approved, the paperwork is being executed as we speak. Before
this thing is finally approved, that will be an ink deal. [crosstalk 00:22:09]
Audience: [crosstalk 00:22:09] [inaudible 00:22:12]
Kevin Ratterree: If you wouldn't mind, let me just get through the presentation and I'll get the
questions in the end just to get you a little sporadic. All right, so let me go back
to restaurants. Michael Freedman who Ken introduced is the VP of promotion for
GL. Michael is the guy that does all of our leasing for GL's commercial centers,
and don't let the name GL Homes confuse you, we are both a residential home
builder, Saturnia Lakes, Riverstone, Stone Creek, we are also a commercial
170306_0020 Page 9 of 33
builder. We have a commercial division, we've got several centers on the east
coast of Florida, this is our first foray over on the west coast. Michael's been the
guy that's been dealing with all these folks. When you ask those questions later,
I'm going to let Michael answer those because he's the guy that's been dealing
with them. Since we have done the neighborhood information meetings that we
had with the communities, we have received at least 20 inquires from people
that know somebody, who know somebody, that was at that meeting who had
called us an inquired about leasing spacing in the center. So there are the
tenants that Michael is trying to get to, again, retail down at the bottom, but
again, the whole thing is premised on that grocery store anchor.
Okay, this is probably the slide that most people want to spend a little time on. In
addition to the 100,000 square foot cap, the 45,000 square foot max per tenant,
one of the things that we get a lot of feedback on is, "Well, are you going to
allow," I'm sorry for doing this to you, WaWa in here, "Are you going to allow
WaWa in your center? Are you going to have 24 hour fuel and convenience
store? Are you going to have a theater? Are you going to have adult
entertainment? Are you going to have ..." Start going down the list of all these
things that folks have concern about being potentially located in proximity to the
neighborhood.
So what we have done as part of this process, is we have then included a list of
uses that will be prohibited so that they are, by zoning development order,
restricted on the property, we cannot cite them on the site. We have provided
that as part of our CPUD application. It's a little hard to see it at that you're at,
but just to run through them, discount dollar stores, the Dollar Tree, Family
whatever, those types of uses will not be allowed. Those types of uses that
create loud noises, we get a lot of people concerned about, "Are you going to
have a bar in here that's going to have live music?" The answer is no, we're
restricting both bars and we're restricting uses that generate loud music. Sound
is regulated by the Collier County code, I've been asked especially in prior
meetings, we are going to add outdoor seating areas.
If you've been to a restaurant with outdoor seating areas a lot of times have
speakers outside where they pipe in music. The music is not so loud that you
can't have your conversation while you're eating dinner with your family. So the
idea is we're going to ask ambient music allowed for the outdoor seating areas,
but you would not have live entertainment or anything like that outdoors that
would create the type of music that would be objectionable to you in the
immediate area. Manufacturing facility, that's kind of a no-brainer. Dry cleaners,
a lot of people have concerns about dry cleaners, especially areas that have well
proximate to it, they're worried about chemicals potentially getting in their well
system. Car washers, tire stores, automobile repair, those guns that they use to
take tires off are some of the loudest things out there, you can hear those things
for miles, so it's prohibited for those reasons. Salvation Army, Goodwill, again,
they all do great services for the community, but those are the types of uses that
are being prohibited.
170306_0020 Page 10 of 33
Surplus stores, overstock stores, stores that you see that typically are bigger box
type users with [inaudible 00:26:10]. Amusement center, carnivals, laser tag,
trampoline facilities, those are all prohibited under our application as well.
Massage parlor, kind of goes without explanation, but there it is. Adult
bookshop, adult movie theater, mortuary, funeral parlor, coin operated laundry,
cocktail lounge, bar, tavern, night club, cinema, or theater. It's an interesting one
because I get a lot of people that would say, "We would love to have a theater
pretty close to our house," and then you have a lot of people that say, "I would
hate to have a theater close to my house." Generally, those uses are very intense
on Friday and Saturday nights, they go to early hours of the morning, there's a lot
of traffic trips attributed to them, so we have just decided to prohibit that use in
the center. So those of you that wanted to have a movie theater there, my
apologies, but those are the types of things that we're trying to do to keep the
scale of this down to a neighborhood center.
Bowling alley, pool hall, skating rink, animal raising and storage facility. You saw
earlier about PetSmart, it's not designed to be overnight boarding or that type of
facility, but a retail store like a PetSmart would be something that would be
allowed. Hotels, motels, lodging facilities, again prohibited. With all due respect
to where we are, churches would be prohibited. [inaudible 00:27:35], sorry, but
churches would be prohibited. Gun range, occult sciences, I don't know what
those are, but okay. Nursing home, old age center, tobacco store, hookah
lounge, electronic cigarettes, all of those things are just things that we have
prohibited through this application and inclusive of what will be gas station,
convenience store, gas sales, we're not going to have any of that.
Let's spend a little time with buffers, I don't know that it's necessary to go
through it unless I get a question, but these are some examples of some buffers.
I think the best way to talk about what we do in terms of buffering is, go and
drive down communities and see what we do. We have always been known to be
a landscape heavy company, sometimes we get complaints in our communities
that we were too landscape heavy, but we really try to do as much landscape ...
This is a commercial center, so obviously visibility's important, but obviously
we're trying to do this in an upscale manner, so the landscaping that we do will
be. This is an actual picture, this our Canyon Town Center over on the east coast.
For those of you who happen to be over there, I would encourage you to take a
drive by and see what we do from a commercial ... It's off of the Florida
turnpike's Florida Beach boulevard. Just head west, you're going to run right into
it. This is a shopping center we built back in 2005, Mike?
Michael F.: Eight.
Kevin Ratterree: 2008, I was close. It's anchored by a Publix, but just to give you an idea of scale
and elevation, it's got a Panera Bread in it here, that's the Publix corner over
there. There's the Publix elevation there. They have [inaudible 00:29:19], and a
Wells Fargo. This is an actual picture as well, yes the grass is actually that green. I
170306_0020 Page 11 of 33
don't know why, but it is that green. This is an actual aerial photograph of the
shopping center. This is a main street right here, this is the Publix anchor over
here. This is part of a civic site that we gave to Palm Beach County. There's an
amphitheater back here that events are held at and we built in soccer fields as
kind of a temporary because the kids are having a hard time getting of the soccer
fields out there. When the county builds this park over on this property, they'll
get rid of that soccer field, but it's something we did as part of the overall site.
Tim can probably get into a little more detail of this, if necessary, but I want to
talk about subdistrict because one of the questions that I get a lot is, "If we allow
this to be approved, does that mean that everybody next to us, the barn doors
open, and now suddenly everybody can come in and request a commercial
designation?" It's a very important question I want to make sure we spend a little
time talking about. First off, anybody can come in and file an application with
Collier county to change land usage, it's the right of any property on Earth to do
that. So I can't preclude Mr. Walker or Mr. [Courier 00:30:37] or anybody coming
in and making an application. What we tried to do when we set this application
was to set it up as an infill subdistrict and that's important because what we
want to have a property owner do is go through the entitlement process, very
similar to what we're doing, where they have to go through public hearings, they
have to do community meetings, they don't have to labor of information
meetings. You want to be involved in the process, you want to know what's
going on.
What we did with the subdistrict was we set it up where this particular standard
right here, on one side [inaudible 00:31:17] commercial side is not [inaudible
00:31:19] urban commercial district. What that really means is, if we got
commercial on this property, the adjacent property, just a commercial
designation, the adjacent property could come in and seek commercial zoning
without going through the land use amendment process because there's a
standard in Collier County development regulations that allows that to happen.
However, by creating this as a subdistrict, we have preempted that property
owner's right to do that, they would have to go through the same process that
we go through relevant to notice to homeowners and request that through a
public [inaudible 00:31:56] process.
Lighting, we've got our lighting plan. The Collier County standard is zero foot
candles when you get off the property. We've done a lot of [inaudible 00:32:09]
plan to show that. We're hitting zero foot candles on the adjacent property. This
is done, just for an example of the lighting fixture. These are the new state of the
art LED lighting fixtures that are going in. The whole purpose of those is really
refine the light and direct it down so that you don't have a lot of ambient light
coming out. [inaudible 00:32:28] be able to see the light. If you're across the
street and you're staring at a shopping center, you're going to be able to see the
light. The question is, is the light getting to you? That's spill over in the foot
candles. You can see light, but the question is, is it spilling over to the point
170306_0020 Page 12 of 33
where you're being lighted by the light. The answer is, that standard of Collier
County, is to get to 0.00 foot candles on the property.
Here's an example of that. These are much taller LED fixtures, but if you'll notice,
very bright around the base of them, but as you get off the light fixture itself it
gets very dark very quickly.
Okay, I'm going to turn it over to Jeff, let him talk about the traffic a little bit. I
know that's probably a good bit of the questions that are going to come up
tonight, so I'm going to let Jeff handle that. Then I'll be back up to kind of
summarize and get questions.
Jeff Perry: [inaudible 00:33:21] Okay. Good evening. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry, a
transportation planner with Santec consulting. I prepared the traffic analysis for
this particular project for both applications. As Kevin and Tim said, there are two
companion applications moving together. There will actually be a third analysis
that will be required by the county. You have one for the conference of planning,
you have one for zoning analysis, and then you also have one for the actual site
development plan. When this project, if it's approved, it moved forward through
site development plan review where we get down really down into the weed
about engineering and the very fine details of a site design, building permits,
there's a traffic stuff that's done, again. That's important because if there is any
lag between a project's zoning approval and when the site plan approval comes
in, you want to make sure that the site plan zoning analysis, traffic analysis, is up
to date. That it's the most current available the time, that analysis of is done in a
timely fashion.
When we do an analysis like this, we follow the county's regulations, there is a
standard set of guidelines, we establish a study area, look at the different
roadways that are likely to be impacted by a particular project and we do what's
called trip generation. We look at the project form the standpoint of the amount
of development that's being proposed. We can then use national standards for
determining how many trips will generated to and from a project. In the case of
residential, we know that residential projects are generators. When a 100 units,
or 1,000 units or developed, people move into those homes, they are generating
traffic. It's brand new trips, coming and going to their homes. Commercial on the
other hand is what we call attractors. They are the places where people go to.
The people that leave their home and go to the grocery store, or go to work, go
to an office, they are actually going to that destination or to that attractor.
Commercial shopping centers of this type, neighborhood commercial centers,
also have the advantage of capturing traffic that's already on the roadway. So we
see that there's traffic moving along Immokalee road, this is Logan Boulevard
here and the shopping center here. There's traffic already on Immokalee road. As
it passes by the shopping center, on your way home from work to get to your
residence, you stop at the grocery store. You stop at the drug store, or whatever
it is that you want to stop at. It's called a pass by trip, so it's not generating new
170306_0020 Page 13 of 33
trips. There are some employment numbers, people that are working here are
coming from their home, they're going to a particular place, but generally
speaking, a project like this is capturing quite a bit of traffic along the existing
route, and especially during the peak hour. When we analyze traffic, the county
is most concerned about the peak hour of the day, which in also every case, is
the evening.
It just so happens on Immokalee road the AM peak hour of background traffic,
the current volumes, are a little bit higher in the morning going inbound, going
towards Naples, than they are in the afternoon going out. But generally
speaking, generators, those that are generating traffic, are generating either in
the morning or in the afternoons. Attractors like shopping centers typically have
a much higher PM peak traffic, there's very little activity going on here at 7:00,
8:00 in the morning. You have some grocery stores that might be open at that
hour, but many of the retail establishments, small offices that might be in there,
are not open at that particular hour in the day, so people are not coming in and
out of the shopping center in the morning. So we're required to look at the
evening, PM peak hour, how many trips will come into and out of the site
relative to the amount of traffic on a particular road.
These particular numbers ... This traffic analysis is available in the public record,
we can get you copies of it if you're interested in the entire report. We've
analyzed the traffic signals, we've analyzed the amount of traffic coming into and
out of the site. We've estimated, with all these little blue arrows, the amount of
traffic that will go in each direction because obviously as Kevin had said, there's a
right in and a right out on Immokalee road. We're proposing right out, left out,
left in, and right in on Logan boulevard, so we've assigned what we believe is a
distribution of traffic in each of these movements in each of these directions.
There will be some people that will be coming down on Immokalee road
westbound and will want to make a U-turn and come back around into the
shopping center. There will be others that will want to come down here and use
the access off of Logan. So we tried to account for all of the movements that will
people will make into and out of the shopping center. These numbers, the red
numbers, are the numbers that are the total driveway volumes so that includes
the trips that are already on the roadway that someone stops and says, "Oh, I'm
going to go into Publix," got a call, turn and go into the grocery store get a quart
of milk and then turn around and come back out once they get whatever it is you
need. So these are the active driveway volumes. That's not the net new traffic
that would ultimately be added to the roadway.
These are the volumes on the roadways today. In the morning, and this is a peak
hour, there's 2,200 vehicles an hour traveling on Immokalee road westbound. In
the evening, a little bit less than that, about 1,900 vehicles per hour traveling in
that direction. Our traffic, as you can see, is 124, 173 coming in and turning in
this way. The total numbers, as I said, are the driveway volumes coming in. A
small fraction of the amount of traffic that is currently on the road and some of
170306_0020 Page 14 of 33
that traffic that is currently in this, what we call the travel screen, this numbers
up here, will actually be showing up in these numbers in the driveways because
they'll be turning in off of a driveway.
We've conducted the analysis for the county. Our analysis shows that there is
existing failures at the intersections, the volumes on the roadways are not
significant enough to require additional travel lanes on the roadways, but we do
know that there are problems at some of the intersections. The county is aware
of these problems. The problems are not caused by this particular project. The
county is currently pursuing a study of the entire corridor of Immokalee road to
try to identify what improves are ultimately going to be needed and then using
their impact fees and assessments of individual projects, determine what
improves have to be constructed and who has to pay for them.
So when this project comes in for its site development plan, we'll go back
through another analysis and if there's a proportionate share or some
improvement that the county feels is the responsibility of this developer, then
they would contribute that particular portion to fixing one or more of these
intersection problems. These are problems that exist today that are not the
responsibility of this developer so we have to assume that the county's going to
fix these in the future, but if the developer is contributing any deficiencies, then
they are required, any developer, is required to pay a proportionate share to
remedy that particular problem. I think that's it. We will answer any questions a
little bit later.
Kevin Ratterree: Michael told me I needed to clarify my statement on the massage parlors. Not a
frequenter of massage parlors, so Massage Envy is different than a massage
parlor. That's the way he's tried [crosstalk 00:41:42]. Before we get to questions,
there are these things called deviations. Deviations are, code says you can do
this, you request a deviation to allow you to do this. We do a lot of deviations
when we deal with our residential PUDs and I'll have Tim come up here and go
through those really quickly. It's kind of a standard procedure that we have to
ask for them, but we have to kind of inform you what those deviations are. A lot
of it relates to the signage on the corner, trying to make sure we can
accommodate that signage and that it has that scale to it, but I'm going to let
him go through them real quick.
Tim Hancock: [inaudible 00:42:29] Okay, it'll be little more helpful with this slide to discuss this
with you. As Kevin said, again, for those of you who came in late, my name is Tim
Hancock with Stantec, I'm the planner for this project. There are, in our current
document, there are a total of three deviations being requested. The deviations
are form what's called the land development code. That is, in essence, the rules
and regulations of development for Collier County. Just like any code, it's not
really a one size fits all. One of the nice things about a planning unit
development or a PUD, which is this project is, is that we can tailor the land uses,
we can tailor the standards to meet an intended result. That's really what the
deviations do, is they take what you've seen here today and they make sure
170306_0020 Page 15 of 33
that's what you're going to get. So let me go over these quickly and most of them
deal with signage.
The first deviation on our document dealt with parking. Well, that deviation
actually is going to go away. The reason is because GL has reduced the square
footage to 100,000 square feet or less, normally a parcel of this size would have
150,000 square feet or more. Because of that, there's no squeeze on parking,
there's no parking issues. So deviation number one in the document is going to
go away, we don't need to talk about that.
Deviation number two is really about the exhibit that you see here. This is a
project identification sign. Collier County code really isn't set up for most
projects to have these. As a matter of fact, how many of these have you seen
Collier County that are not in a residential development? Not many, but it's a
very key feature for the aesthetics and the treatment you see here, that tells
you, you have arrived somewhere special. So rather than just having grass and a
lake, we think this project identification sign is important. We're asking, and by
the way, this doesn't identify any of the businesses in here, it's simply the project
name, which again, for those of you who showed up late, it will not be Naples
Garden Shop or Naples Village Shops, we're having to go back to the drawing
board because we're using some overused names. So there's a contest out there,
if anyone comes up with a name, see Michael. He doesn't have to have dinner
with you if you win the contest, you can go on your own. This project identifier,
we had a deviation that says, "Yes, we can do this," because the code really
doesn't allow for that type of signage.
The second deviation ... Let's see. In most shopping centers, and you've probably
heard them called out parcels. Usually when you have a building along the
perimeter of the project, they design these ... We do this from a fit standpoint as,
you put this out parcel here, and then this one, and this one, and this one. You
just line them up like soldiers. The reason is, you normally carve out a piece of
property and you sell the land itself fee simple to whoever's going to develop it.
Each of those out parcels is allowed to have what's called a ground sign, which is,
I believe, it's 12 feet in the code, maybe eight feet.
Because it is not our intent to carve out and sell out parcels, it is actually GL's
intent to lease the pads so that we can have this nice continuous flow of parking
and not break every little site up, which really makes it harder to walk from one
to the other, and just gives you more of what I call a campus effect where you
can move freely on the site. When you break it into out parcels, you lose some of
them. Once we're no longer carving out parcels, the county code doesn't let us
have those little ground signs. So our deviation is to ask for the ability for each
one of these buildings to have one ground sign out here, eight feet tall, no more
than 60 square feet in size. Very small, very low profile, but again, very important
in order to get quality tenants in these buildings, they really have to have their
ground signs. So just because we're not breaking them into out parcels, we have
to request a deviation for that.
170306_0020 Page 16 of 33
Deviation number goes away, number two and three I just described to you. We
did discover a third deviation for the grocery anchor here. For the size that we
have planned, the county allows 200 square feet of total signage on the front of
that grocery anchor. Picture a Publix, if you will, and they normally have like
Publix, then they have pharmacy, and something else over here, they kind of
break it up into three pieces. Because we're doing a little smaller anchor here,
we don't have enough frontage ... We can have our 200 square feet, but we can't
break it into three pieces that when you add them up, then they make 200
square feet. We met with the sign reviewer today at the county, we're
requesting a deviation so that we're not going to have any more signage than
we're allowed by code, we just want to be able to have those little signs that the
grocery anchor may need in order to advertise the total business that its
performing. So that's the third deviation.
None of them terribly significant, most of them are signage and aesthetics. There
are things that are very important to the folks, the high end businesses, that are
looking to go here, and things that we think don't attract them. As a matter of
fact, we think many of the deviations will add to the aesthetics of the project.
Those are the deviations as we've had them, but last thing I want to mention is,
the zoning is still in process. So as we go forward and we resubmit, there will be
minor changes to the zoning.
Now, the things that you have been told tonight, things such as no massage
parlors, and I've got to figure how to allow Massage Envy, but not have a
massage parlor, I'm not sure how we do that, but we'll figure that out. Those
things are commitments that we've made to you and we're not going to waver in
those, but there may be things that get added and taken out through the process
of reviewing the staff. If any time in this process you want to know what's in
there, all you have to do is call or email me, I will send you the document. I have
my business cards here when you leave. Everything we submit is public record,
you can call Mr. Smith or Mr. Schmidt and they'll provide it to you, or call me and
I'll provide it to you. When I do, I usually copy them anyway so that they know
that we're responding to those things. So if you have any questions after you
leave here today, we remain available throughout the process to address those
questions.
What I'd like to do now is, is turn it back over to Kevin. He gets all the hard
questions, but if you have any easy ones, I'll be over there.
Kevin Ratterree: Tim, thanks. [inaudible 00:49:34] Assuming that the application's approved and
we continue through this process, our goal is deliver the grocery pad first quarter
of 2019, so that's the anticipated timing. Somebody's going to ask me, "Well, GL
Homes gets it approved and then they flip it, sell it to somebody who builds it."
First off, I've been with GL for 18 years, we've never sold a single piece of
property, we are going to develop them, we are not a seller. We have a complete
division that is designed for the purpose of leasing and operating commercial
170306_0020 Page 17 of 33
shopping centers Our intent and our end product will be a center built by GL, a
center maintained by GL, a center operated by GL. So if anybody's concerned
about building a high quality center, we are. Why are we going to be concerned
about that? Because we're selling right up the street Stone Creek, we want to
utilize this center as an amenity to the folks that are coming onto our sales floor.
So understand from our perspective, this is a GL center, this is not an approval
that gets done and then flips to somebody else. So understand that from
[inaudible 00:50:51].
Finally, lastly, as Tim said, please, by all means, if you have any questions that
didn't get answered, you think of something at night, if you're like me you wake
up at 3:00 in the morning and go, "Ah, totally forgot that," just send us an email
and we'll get an answer back to you ask quickly as we can. All right, questions.
Let me see if I can do this in a framework that is logical. People are going to raise
their hands, I'm not being gender specific or color specific, or I like you, I don't
like you, I'm just going to do them as I go along. If you just ask your question and
we'll see what we can do to answer it. Yes, sir?
Speaker 7: You said first quarter 2019 for the pad for the grocery store, is that the first one,
the last one, the middle one?
Kevin Ratterree: That's the first one.
Speaker 7: Okay. It'll all be built at one time though?
Kevin Ratterree: Yeah. The goal is to get the grocery, and we're going to build everything at the
same time, but our target is to get that grocery pad up. Yes, ma'am? Second row.
Sorry, I'll get you.
Speaker 8: Okay, my concern is traffic. We live in [inaudible 00:51:53] and stranger danger is
leaving our community, I wonder that when you did your analyzing, I have
several questions. First of all, did you consider the schools that are there?
Number one. The other thing was, when we talked to the police officers who
have come into our community, they constantly tell us the lights are on timers,
however, they never consider the fact that there's a right on red at the corner of
Logan and Immokalee. So even though that light may change and become red
and gives us an opportunity to cross three lanes, which they tell us is illegal, but
if that's the only way we get to get inside, the fact that it's right on red deters us
from ... Again, we still have traffic coming through. So I guess my question to you
is, was that looked at, at all? Or are you just concerned with the area from Logan
and Immokalee?
Jeff Perry: The answer is yes ... The answer is no, we did not look at that far off away from
the project. Once the traffic gets into the travel stream, depending on how much
traffic is being generated, and I can share with you some of the numbers up
there, 133 trips, stuff like that, the county only requires us to go so far because
after that, it attenuates off, some of it goes into Saturnia Lakes, some of it goes a
170306_0020 Page 18 of 33
little further, goes into another driveway. It ultimately gets reduced. So a much
larger project, for instance, the project that Kevin mentioned that previously had
been [inaudible 00:53:35] here, 200,000 square feet would generate twice as
much traffic and this would. The traffic analysis would have extended out a little
further, it would have looked a little bit further, perhaps to the next intersection
beyond.
But once you get to a certain point, the amount of traffic that's being added to
the travel stream no longer becomes an issue as far as levels of service. Not
withstanding your problem of getting into and out of the projects, and we've
seen that on Saturnia Lakes, we've seen it in just countless situations where the
access connections that don't have a traffic signal, don't have the luxury of
having a traffic signal, have to deal with median openings that divert traffic, that
only allow you one way in and one way out to have to make a right turn and go
down, make a U-turn-
Speaker 8: We only have one in and out, that's all. We don't have the [inaudible 00:54:31]
like Saturnia Lakes can get out on Logan or Immokalee-
Jeff Perry: Right.
Speaker 8: We have no choice.
Jeff Perry: The county's cover their ears. The county's responsibility to main the level of
service of the roadway, it is not to make your access convenient. They need to
make sure that your access is safe, so they don't want to put you in harm's way,
but the access into and out of a project is regulated by access management
standards. Not everybody can have a full median opening, not everybody can
have a traffic signal, so there are standards that are adopted, and when these
projects are developed, you have to live with those particular standards. As
inconvenient as it might be to be able to get into and out of a project, those are
based on the standards that we're faced with. We would love to be able to
provide much more convenient interconnections for projects when we sponsor
these projects to the county, but their responsibility is the mainline, your
movements along the major highways.
Speaker 8: My concern isn't convenience, my concern is safety. There are a lot of accidents
in that area and you're talking schools, you're talking [inaudible 00:55:42]-
Jeff Perry: Right.
Speaker 8: There are accidents there all the time.
Jeff Perry: The county's traffic operations staff looks at those accidents, they get accident
reports, crash reports from all the accidents, from all the crashes. They look at
the crash reports, if there are geometric problems with an intersection, or with a
turn lane, or something like that, they can take steps to correct it. More often
170306_0020 Page 19 of 33
than not, crashes are not caused by geometric or engineering problems, they're
caused by driver behavior. The county's response to those kinds of changes is to,
in fact, limit some of the movements that are causing the problems. For instance,
if there's a connection that allows you to cross over three lines of traffic and it
becomes a problem, becomes a crash problem, the county can close that access
so that you have to turn right and go down, make a U-turn, and make some
other movements to get into and out of a project. So, the problem that we have
is that everybody would love to have the most convenient, safe access
connections that they can, into and out of a development, but often times what
you get is not convenient.
It's supposed to be safe, it's designed to be safe, driver behavior plays a big role
in whether or not you have crashes at a particular area. The amount of traffic
that this project is generating is, to use the term, dropping the bucket from the
amount of traffic that is on this road today and is going to grow from projects
further east, that are going to be developed, that are going to come into I-75 and
so forth. What this development does, what this commercial development does,
is gives people today, leaving Saturnia Lakes, or leaving one of the other
developments in this particular area, have to travel three, four, or five miles to
get to a grocery story. You won't have to do that with a neighborhood center like
this.
Likewise, people traveling that long distance along the road will not have to stop
at one other place or go out of their way, they'll be able to stop at this particular
commercial, if they need to stop and get groceries or something like that. That's
a long winded answer, but-
Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:57:57] If you pull and if you want to go west, you go up a short
distance and make the U-turn .
Speaker 8: [inaudible 00:58:02] the school.
Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:58:05]
Speaker 8: I was just saying, are all of these cars who are going to pull out of there, they're
going to have to go that same U-turn to head west, so it will be that much busier
for [inaudible 00:58:15].
Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:58:17]
Jeff Perry: No, hold on for a second. Yeah.
Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:58:20]
Jeff Perry: Please, here's what ends up happening, if everybody starts talking over each
other, it's complete anarchy. Based on the conversation, understand what
people do from a traffic pattern standpoint, what you're referring to is
170306_0020 Page 20 of 33
somebody who's going east, to go west. Now, think about your driving pattern. If
you're going west, what exit are you going to go out of? The logical exit is that
you're going to come out on the Logan boulevard side, take a right, and go up to
a signalized intersection to take your left. Very few people, there will be some,
again, driver patterns are driver partners, that will take a right out and then try
to get over to whatever will be the first legal U-turn that they can make, to do a
U-turn. Most people who go ... I go to pretty much the same grocery store, the
same several grocery stores every time I shop, I know the traffic pattern in terms
of how it works best for me, being able to get in and out. So folks that are
traveling west, or folks that are going to Old Cypress, or Riverside, or Stone
Creek, they're going to do this movement here. There's going to go come and do
this or they're going to come out and do that because that is going to be the
most convenient and it's going to be the safest. So to just kind of expand the
[inaudible 00:59:52] of your comment.
Speaker 9: That makes sense.
Jeff Perry: Okay. Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 10: Yes. With the traffic study, do you take into consideration that there is a
proposed school coming in Stone Creek that will cause a lot of bus traffic, school
children on buses, this is already ... Immokalee Road is already very heavily traffic
and the school and all the new cars from Stone Creek, was that in to the study?
Jeff Perry: It is. The background traffic, what we call background traffic, not related to this
particular project, is in the existing numbers as well as in our forecast. So when
we analyze something five years out into the future, or 10 years out into the
future, we have to grow the traffic or inflate the traffic numbers to represent
traffic from developments that are outside the area that are traveling along the
roadway. This traffic is going to grow 2% per year or 3% per year, whatever the
number happens to be based on historical trends and modeling. Those numbers
are all considered in the analysis.
Speaker 10: So the school was in it?
Jeff Perry: Yes.
Speaker 10: The new school?
Jeff Perry: Also, keep in mind, this is an important thing that people sometimes don't think
about in terms of shopping centers, hours. So school has a peak time at around,
I'm going to say, just to be conservative, 6:30 to 8:30, okay? This is a peak time
for a school. Well most of the tenants in a shopping center are not open yet. If
you have a coffee shop, they will be open, grocery probably is open, they
probably open at 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning, but all your local retail, unless
you're restaurants, they generally don't open that early in the morning. So it's a
little bit off an off peak to peak review that you need to be thinking about. Then
170306_0020 Page 21 of 33
in the afternoon, the peak time of a school is a little earlier in the afternoon than
the peak time the county uses in terms of the PM peak hour which is generally
4:00 to 6:00, that time frame, most schools are out and have completely
dissipated by then.
Again, just something to think about. We did take it into account there is a little
bit of different in peak hour traffic, but we were ... [inaudible 01:02:12] that
school site was part of our [inaudible 01:02:16] approval to dedicate that school
site to Collier, I'm not aware that that school's been funded yet, but Collier
County, to my knowledge, has not been funded, so they would have to put that
in their five year capital plan, they would have to do the construction drawings,
they would have to do all that. It's years off in terms of the planning provided for
that, but even if it were there, it's going to be a little bit different peak hours in
terms of the peak hour of the shopping center compared to the peak hour of the
elementary school. Yes, sir?
Speaker 11: There's a school being built by Stone Creek, north of us.
Jeff Perry: There is a school site dedicated to the Collier County school district, it's secured.
If you've been out to Stone Creek and you go into Stone Creek, you take a left off
of Logan boulevard, the school site is directly north of that, a vacant piece of
property that is part of Collier County's obligation in the project [inaudible
01:03:09] approval process which we've dedicated that school site potentially for
a future school. Somebody's going to ask me about Logan boulevard?
Speaker 11: Is it a high school, a middle school?
Jeff Perry: It's an elementary school.
Audience: Elementary school.
Jeff Perry: Hold on one second, let me just address the Logan boulevard thing for a second.
Somebody's going to ask me what's the timing of Logan boulevard? The answer
is, we have to have that road [inaudible 01:03:30] when we reach 297
certificates of occupancy in Stone Creek and we have to build it within one year
of starting construction. So it is not imminent, imminent, but it's on the horizon.
That's something that over the next couple of years, that link between Bonita
Beach and Immokalee is going to be built. Somebody is going to ask me, is it
going to be a four lane section? That one I can definitely say no because when
Old Cypress first dedicated the right of way they only dedicated 60 feet for the
future roadway, so there's not enough right of way for a four lane section to be
built. Now, the county could have the right to come in and condemn property
and do all that, but the whole ... If you've been part of that public participation in
the discussion on Logan boulevard, that [inaudible 01:04:20] had been planned
to be a two lane road. Yes ma'am, over here?
170306_0020 Page 22 of 33
Speaker 12: I have a question, so what about Logan boulevard between Immokalee and
Vanderbilt? Is there a plan or availability to widen that?
Jeff Perry: There is right of way available, the road was designed ... Yep, I'm going to take
the blame for it, you can blame me for a few things out here, but Logan
boulevard was built by GL, we obtained the right of way for the construction of
Logan, for that length of Logan, so [inaudible 01:04:46], there's right of way for a
four lane section. It's actually design to accommodate a four lane section. It is
not funded by Collier County, there's nobody on the book who has the obligation
to four lane it, but it has the potential of being four laned.
Speaker 12: In this development, you said this is [inaudible 01:05:07] owned by GL homes-
Jeff Perry: Yes.
Speaker 12: And operated by GL homes?
Jeff Perry: Yeah, Immokalee Road Associates LLC is a affiliated entity of GL.
Speaker 12: Do they have other commercial properties?
Jeff Perry: Yes, we do. Yes, sir?
Speaker 13: You mentioned high end a few times, so would it be like a smaller version of
Mercado's?
Jeff Perry: I'm going to let them speak to you about that.
Kevin Ratterree: It won't be sort of Mercado, effectively it's a mix of these projects, residential
and I think they have an office there, it's going to be a neighborhood shopping
center, we're going to aim for the higher end restaurants, [inaudible 01:05:44]
restaurants that you stop in front, but no, it won't be a full mixed use project.
Speaker 13: Because I have a house in Old Cypress and for me to get out of my development,
by the time you get to Mercado's [inaudible 01:05:53]. So obviously we know
[inaudible 01:05:56], there is traffic, and because of that I think it's cool if there's
that kind of, if we could have that smaller venue closer-
Speaker 14: Yeah, if I could piggy back on his question, I live in Saturnia Lakes and this is going
to put a lot of stuff within a walk from me. So it's going to get me out of my car a
lot, do I really have to wait until 2019 to get it? [crosstalk 01:06:22]
Speaker 13: [inaudible 01:06:27] I don't need to go there for lunch, but a cool place to go to
have a nice dinner, without having to go to fifth avenue, which I could fly a plane
down to, or or just, to me, is more convenient because of the traffic. When you
say high end, I think that's a cool, it's like a fresh market, it tells us what it is.
Whether a Whole Foods, [inaudible 01:06:49] a Publix, like a smaller [inaudible
170306_0020 Page 23 of 33
01:06:51], would be a hell of a lot more convenient than driving to the East
Springs or down the 41.
Kevin Ratterree: Right, and again, to reiterate again something I said earlier today to you that may
have come in late. That was really the driving force behind us buying the
property and assembling with Mr. Walker's acre, is to try to come in and do a
very high end shopping center because we were hearing the same thing that
you're saying, from the folks that were buying from us.
Speaker 13: [crosstalk 01:07:17]
Kevin Ratterree: That's great, but I have to drive 25 minutes to get to a reasonably good
restaurant or whatever, I'd like to have something a little more convenient. So
that was a driving force [crosstalk 01:07:31]. That is how long it takes us to get
through a regulatory approval process. It is what it is, for those of you have been
around a GL homes project, you know we build relatively fast.
Speaker 13: Yeah, that's for sure.
Kevin Ratterree: So when we get the ability to go, we're going to go. If we get the ability to go.
Speaker 13: Super.
Kevin Ratterree: Cool, yes ma'am.
Speaker 15: In the list of [inaudible 01:07:50] uses, you keep driving around the term high
end, high end, high end, and I understand that's what you want, but reality is
something different as to who wants this shopping center and who wants to be
there. The two restaurant pads that you had [inaudible 01:08:06], is there any
way for you to guarantee us that that's not going to be a fast food, a drive
through Starbucks, a Chipotle, a Taco Bell, something like that? I don't think we
need any more of that.
Speaker 13: We might need Starbucks.
Speaker 15: I don't.
Kevin Ratterree: [crosstalk 01:08:30] This is the part of the meeting where people start getting
mad at each other. [crosstalk 01:08:34]
Speaker 13: I do have a second question to follow.
Kevin Ratterree: So everybody has their own opinions of what they like. Some people like
Chipotle, some people like [inaudible 01:08:41], some people like Starbucks,
some people like Dunkin Donuts. Our site plan is not set up to have fast food,
drive through, on those front outposts. The goal is to have sit down restaurants.
170306_0020 Page 24 of 33
We haven't gotten into the leasing process with those restaurants yet because
we have this approval process in front of us.
Speaker 13: That's your goal, but I'm saying, you're trying to get the neighborhoods approval
or support, and I'm saying you're saying high end, but you're not saying, but we
won't take a McDonald's, we won't take a Burger King.
Kevin Ratterree: There's a ton of leases out there and we don't know who they are yet-
Speaker 13: But you decide who's going to be in the shopping center.
Kevin Ratterree: Absolutely.
Speaker 13: That's my point. So in the [inaudible 01:09:23] uses, and you say it's going to be
high end, maybe it should say, we won't.
Tim Hancock: I'm sorry, if I may, I think this is where I come in. This is a zoning process and
zoning has certain criteria that it can and cannot apply. In the zoning document,
to say that we will not have this brand name is not something that is either
typical and may not even be [crosstalk 01:09:49]. So, [inaudible 01:09:51].
[crosstalk 01:09:56] We get into another problem when you say, we don't want a
drive through. [inaudible 01:10:00] dry cleaners has a drive through. Panera
Bread, do you like Panera bread?
Speaker 13: They're like a Target.
Tim Hancock: That isn't the question, my question is, do you like Panera Bread?
Speaker 13: Yes.
Tim Hancock: If they have a drive through, do you like them less?
Speaker 13: Yes.
Tim Hancock: Because Panera now has drive throughs. So we get into this really strange
conversation, so I just want to ... We're dealing with land use right now-
Speaker 13: [crosstalk 01:10:21] community and the community know honestly what's going
to be there.
Tim Hancock: Right, understood, so what I'll tell you is, the way in which we're going to ensure
quality is through high end site design at this stage. I have done hundreds, I have
not had developers, at this stage, showing the degree of architecture that you
see here. Usually it's very speculative at this stage, they don't even know what
the buildings are going to look like. I think what you're seeing is the commitment.
They even asked to put the elevations in the zoning document and we were told
that you can't, but you can make it an exhibit at the hearing, so they're willing to
170306_0020 Page 25 of 33
commit to what you see here, which is high end. I just wanted to kind of give you
a framework, there are things we can commit to, and the things in the zoning
document are difficult to [inaudible 01:11:13] commit to, so I just don't want it
to appear that they're being difficult, we do have [inaudible 01:11:17].
Speaker 13: So what you're saying is, it could end up being a fast food restaurant, right?
Kevin Ratterree: The site design of the two pads is not fast food, the site design doesn't show a
fast food lane, it shows a sit down restaurant-
Speaker 13: [crosstalk 01:11:32] [inaudible 01:11:34].
Kevin Ratterree: Okay. If the center was 100% leased before we started, we already be out of
business. That's not how centers operate. The goal, number one, is to get the
grocery anchor locked in, and Michael, as I said earlier, before we go through the
final approval process, that grocery anchor will be ink. Whether or not they will
allow us to say who it is, that's up to them, but one of those four will be ink
signed, sealed, and delivered before. Rule number one is getting the high end
grocery anchor. Then we start dealing with, now we know who that is, all the
other retail guys start to fall in place, all the other restaurant guys start to fall
into place.
We're not going to lease a center that's going to be crappy little uses because it's
just going to be a detraction from what we're trying to accomplish, which is to
have a high end center. I understand your concern, but we wouldn't be doing the
detail, and the commitment, and the things that we're doing if we weren't
convinced and we know that we're going to get those type of tenants here
because we've been getting the calls from the tenants that are interested in
coming to the center, already, and we have to tell them, we're not ready and
we're not to that stage yet. We have to get to a point where we're farther along
in the approval process. Yes, sir?
Speaker 16: Yes, when you looked at the traffic pattern, [inaudible 01:12:59]?
Kevin Ratterree: I'm sorry.
Speaker 16: [crosstalk 01:13:02]
Kevin Ratterree: The answer is yes. If you're showing a drive through, you would have to
[crosstalk 01:13:08]-
Speaker 16: So if you did [crosstalk 01:13:10] drive through, [inaudible 01:13:12]-
Kevin Ratterree: Revised traffic.
Speaker 16: [crosstalk 01:13:15]
170306_0020 Page 26 of 33
Kevin Ratterree: What was the question?
Speaker 16: If the study is based on not a drive through restaurant, then if they did lease to a
fast food restaurant, I assume the traffic patterns would increase.
Kevin Ratterree: It's use is going to be determined at the [S and P 01:13:38] for transportation, so
I wouldn't be able to answer that question until ... That would be something you
would be welcome to give me a call, my card is out there, and I can put you in
with our transportation [inaudible 01:13:53].
Speaker 16: Okay. Yeah.
Kevin Ratterree: [inaudible 01:13:58] showing it on the [SDP 01:14:00], your traffic has to account
for it.
Jeff Perry: That's that third analysis I was talking about.
Kevin Ratterree: Right.
Speaker 16: [inaudible 01:14:06]
Speaker 17: As far as Saturnia Lakes, on the south and the southeastern [inaudible 01:14:14],
it is a [inaudible 01:14:22] space. What is the size of the trees you're putting in
there so we can ... That is still fairly close to the homes on those two streets,
what is the level of foliage that's going to be there to have kind of a [crosstalk
01:14:38].
Kevin Ratterree: That whole green area right there is set up to be a preserve, so the existing
vegetation that's there remains, we just pull out the exotic vegetation, the
material that we have to take out, so the existing native vegetation that's there
will remain.
Speaker 17: Okay. Preserves don't last forever, is there something [inaudible 01:14:57] with
the regular PUD, you can't plant in there unless you get special permission and
everything. If that dissipates or goes away, [crosstalk 01:15:07]
Kevin Ratterree: We can certainly-
Tim Hancock: Yeah. Once something is designed a native preserve, fire county standards
require that all three strata be present, ground cover, mid story, and canopy. If
over the course of time one of those strata were to be adversely impacted, for
whatever reason, you have to replant. So yes, ma'am, the [crosstalk 01:15:31].
Speaker 17: So now we can set our camp is 60 feet, is that what those trees are out there
now or what? [crosstalk 01:15:38]
170306_0020 Page 27 of 33
Tim Hancock: Most of what you see there that are on canopy are pines and their canopy can
start as low as 15 or 20 feet and go up to 60 or more. So yes, that's what I would
call canopy in that area. The mid story in there is also a place that is very thick as
well. Then the one thing you don't see in that is, on the back side of that, across
the lake, we also will have some buffering there as well. So we'll be doing even
more than what would be ... This one doesn't quite show it, that southeast
corner, actually the lake shape is a little bit different, we have it cut at an angle
to allow for more native vegetation there closer to the residences.
Speaker 17: And there'll be additional plantings that you put in there?
Tim Hancock: [crosstalk 01:16:21] What's there has done a great job over the last century.
Speaker 17: Yeah.
Tim Hancock: So we want to leave as much of that as we can.
Speaker 17: That's what I was concerned about. The other thing that I do want to say to
people in here, I've known Kevin and dealt with Kevin and GL Homes for the last
six years, and they are [inaudible 01:16:39] Saturnia and they are people with
integrity and they stand behind their word. They're not going to sell [inaudible
01:16:46] because they still want to build in Naples and I know they've got other
property down on Immokalee, they're not going to shaft people in the
neighborhood. They're here to be a partner and I applaud them for it. They stand
behind their word and [inaudible 01:17:03].
Kevin Ratterree: I think that's the first time I've heard that kind of testimonial in 27 years. Thank
you.
Speaker 17: Thank you.
Kevin Ratterree: I take back all the other [inaudible 01:17:14]. Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 18: We've all seen developments and construction projects that have failed in these
last few years, I'm thinking Vanderbilt Galleria, but what you can tell us about
this one that we can have confidence? Building on your point here that that's not
going to be happening here.
Kevin Ratterree: So the primary driver of the shopping center being the grocery, they typically like
to locate with about 10,000 residents at a minimum. So if you take this broad
area, east of 75, up to [Veneta 01:17:50] Beach, south of Vanderbilt, eat to
wherever you want to go, you have on Publix [inaudible 01:17:58] area. So, most
people [crosstalk 01:18:02]. West of 75. Most people don't like to deal with the
interchange, most people feel that's a natural buffer, but if you add up the
amount of residential units now and in the future, there's a significant need for
more grocers. Obviously that debatable, how far you want to drive, where you
want to drive, and what store you want to go to, but in that general vicinity
170306_0020 Page 28 of 33
there's one primary grocery story in Collier county. So we've had a significant
amount of interest from multiple grocers, as I said, one of those four, we could
probably swap out most of them for interest level. So we think that that would
be the driving force of the shopping center. Most shopping centers feed off of
the grocery store. If you look at this overall market as a whole, it's probably 98%
leased, it's very, very vacancy. Anywhere you go on Immokalee, especially the
Publix, both public centers, [inaudible 01:19:04], so we feel good about the
market from the demand side.
Tim Hancock: The other thing you mentioned is you mentioned Galleria shops. I want to point
something out to you. After Gallerias shops at the ... Are familiar with the
intersection at [inaudible 01:19:18] and [inaudible 01:19:19] road?
Speaker 18: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Tim Hancock: On that southeast corner, that center struggled. The reason it struggled was,
when I originally designed it, it looked like this. Somebody took it, and what they
did was, to maximize the square footage they started putting buildings in front of
buildings, in front of buildings. If you've ever been in there, you notice you can
stand in front of retail shopping, you can't see anything but the building?
Speaker 18: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Tim Hancock: So because of the high intensity of square footage per acre, and poor visibility,
who wants to put their business money in there when they can go somewhere
that has got great visibility? When GL first brought this project to me, I looked at
18 acres and thought, "Oh, they're going to be building about 150,000 square
feet." It's 100,000 square feet. What you get with this lesser square footage is,
you get view windows, openings, a sense of air and light, these are the things
that help centers sustain and maintain a high rent such as what [inaudible
01:20:15] are looking for. I don't want to Kevin's economics, but I can tell you,
the lower intensity of this, the less square footage, is a premium development.
So the one you sited specifically suffered from just the opposite. So from a
planning standpoint, that's something I see as being significantly different about
this project.
Kevin Ratterree: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 19: Yeah, I might have missed this at the beginning. On the traffic flow questions,
first question is, at what time was that traffic flow, what month of the year was
that done? Number one. Number two, I know you sort of compartmentalized the
area of your traffic flow, however, our [inaudible 01:20:59] between Collier and
[inaudible 01:21:02] going in where the Oaks Farms and that sort of tricky traffic
signal and what's going to be happening there, we're already jammed up and
can't even turn out of Logan sometimes through a whole light because they're in
the middle of the road, and you say, "Well that's people, they're not driving
right," but this is a very significant thing already. We're adding another one, and
170306_0020 Page 29 of 33
for a two lane road that can never be anything but a two lane road, for all the
community, [inaudible 01:21:31] Riverstone, that poses a potential jam up on
what we already have.
Jeff Perry: Well to answer you first question, the traffic numbers that I displayed there were
peak seasonal, daily volumes ... I'm sorry, peak season, peak hour volumes in
each direction. So those are, for lack of a better term, the worst traffic of the
year, basically, going in the morning peak hours and in the afternoon peak hours.
Some roads have midday peaks, typically there's a high peak in the morning and
a high peak ... Especially on a commuter route like Immokalee road, serves a
tremendous amount of development, residents, east of Collier, east of here
certainly, and east of Collier, that are traveling inbound to get to I-75 or to get
into Naples or to take other routes. There will be some improvement as the
network expands, as construction on 951 south of [inaudible 01:22:36] road, all
the way down to Green Boulevard, once that's completed, a lot of people are
diverting, so there's ... Traffic sort of seeks its own level.
In this particular instance, keep in mind that we're not adding a significant
amount of new traffic during these worst hours of the day. That we're talking
about if the number was 126 or 130, it's about two vehicles per minute, one
every 30 seconds, leaving the driveway. You could sit here for a minute, or 30
seconds and say, "Oh, there goes another car," and 30 seconds from now we
could say, "There goes another car." We're not talking about a significant
amount of traffic here. We're talking about a lot less traffic than had previously
been proposed for this particular site. The type of use we have here is the
perfect type of use for this particular location. This is use is absent anywhere
between I-75 and 951.
Kevin Ratterree: Jeff, to add on to something you said earlier, regardless of whether this project
moves forward or not, isn't the county doing a study on Immokalee at those
points right now?
Jeff Perry: Right.
Kevin Ratterree: To look at improvements and modifications, and this project will be, if it goes
forward, will be a part of some of those improvements [crosstalk 01:23:55] -
Jeff Perry: Right. The county understand that there's problems on this particular roadway,
starting at I-75, even west of I-75, and they will look at these individual
intersections, try to figure out what needs to be done, we've given them some
hints in our analysis as to what we think needs to be done to solve their problem,
the existing problem that needs to be corrected. If there is contribution that has
to be made by this developer, or another developer, impact fees are paid by
developers, whether they're commercial or residential, to add capacity to the
roadway system. So all of these kind of things are in play. Doesn't help you
tonight or tomorrow morning when you try to get out of your driveway, to get
170306_0020 Page 30 of 33
out onto the roadway, you're still dealing with all of that background traffic that
is not associated with this particular project.
Fortunately, we're not adding a significant amount of traffic to the travel street,
and part of the traffic that we are capturing here is already on the roadway. It's
you driving past this intersection, on your way home you stop to go to the
grocery store or stop for happy hour, or whatever you want to do, this is the
place where you would be able to do that without having to go all the way to 951
and turn around, and go all the way back down Saturnia Lakes to go into your
development.
Speaker 19: So for the [inaudible 01:25:17] this is not part of the traffic statement [crosstalk
01:25:20]-
Jeff Perry: We did not have to-
Speaker 19: [crosstalk 01:25:20]
Jeff Perry: No, we did not have to go beyond I-75 to look at the traffic impacts.
Speaker 19: And that's [inaudible 01:25:28]. But you're not hitting the traffic that you got
[inaudible 01:25:31] for dinner. You got that with your dinner, you go [inaudible
01:25:35]. [inaudible 01:25:37] that traffic that's on the other side of I-75? To
me, [inaudible 01:25:40] go to dinner here than the traffic going out that way.
[crosstalk 01:25:45]
Jeff Perry: Yes, sir?
Speaker 20: Yeah, I wondering if you had considered a site design that included a parking
garage? The reason I ask is that with a parking garage, you wouldn't need so
much of the site dedicated to parking and impermeable asphalt and paved over
surfaces that require large water retention areas, a lot of run off, and parking
lots are not exactly pedestrian friendly either. I mean, two of the six buildings in
the site design are adjacent to each other, they do not require crossing a parking
lot, but the other four buildings are surrounded by parking lots and require
walking across a parking lot to get to them.
Jeff Perry: It's not economically viable typically for a shopping center to put a parking
garage in a situation like this. We're already pretty under density as these guys
alluded to with our square footage. We're trying to make parking be convenient
for all the uses. So we do have those uses and we do have parking accessible to
all those buildings, and to not be a parking disaster as I think the Galleria may
have been.
Speaker 20: Yeah.
170306_0020 Page 31 of 33
Jeff Perry: We're balancing the economics of the project along with convenient parking in
close proximity-
Speaker 20: Yeah. I just like to add quickly that one of the things that people like about a
place like Mercado's, as someone else was saying earlier, is that it's walkable, it's
not a strip mall with giant parking lots, that's why people like going there,
walking around, saying things that [inaudible 01:27:33]. Makes it more of a
destination rather than just a shopping center where you drive to and [crosstalk
01:27:40].
Jeff Perry: Mercado's a great project, no doubt about it, but it's a totally different animal
than this from the density, and the masses that they have. This is a suburban
shopping center with surface parking. We are taking that and trying to take it to
the other level where it is a destination with higher end restaurants, with an
upper end grocer, but it is still a suburban shopping center that is balancing
parking needs.
Kevin Ratterree: I kind of joke, this is kind of like Mercado and a public shopping center having a
baby. You've got a little bit of both in there.
Speaker 20: Yeah, exactly. [crosstalk 01:28:20]
Kevin Ratterree: Doesn't it?
Speaker 20: [crosstalk 01:28:21] a strip mall.
Kevin Ratterree: Yeah, it doesn't, it's a different design. The truth is, Mercado's require a huge
number of rooftops within their proximity plus a resort [inaudible 01:28:32]. You
can't drop a Mercado in the middle of suburbia and be successful. I've watched it
happen and fail in a lot of [inaudible 01:28:42]. So you have to be ... The
demographics have to match a project and I think that's [crosstalk 01:28:45].
Speaker 21: A couple questions for the folks, particular in Oaks. We've worked really hard in
the last 15, 18 years to make sure none of our streets got connected to Logan
boulevard. So first question is, no connectivity to Logan for those streets,
particular Autumn Oaks, Hidden Oaks, Golden Oaks, and-
Kevin Ratterree: We're not proposing any changes to access on our western [crosstalk 01:29:09]-
Speaker 21: Second part, the Logan interchange there, you're not proposing a light at this
time, at all, at that in/out on Logan?
Kevin Ratterree: No, we don't think we're going to meet the spatial separation to even have a
light, it's going to be too close.
Speaker 21: Okay, and last question on that, again, for that last stretch there, once it gets the
site plan approval and everything, we would be particularly concerned about
170306_0020 Page 32 of 33
some screening and other buffers as much as possible because Autumn, Hidden,
and Golden are ones that are exposed most to Logan and uses along here.
Kevin Ratterree: I'm happy to have a conversation with you about that. There's two ways you can
skin a cat, sorry for that analogy, I don't have a cat.
Speaker 21: Or you wouldn't have said that.
Kevin Ratterree: Obviously, visibility is important for a shopping center, you want people to kind
of be able to see it. It may be something we can do, some landscaping on your
side-
Speaker 21: Okay.
Kevin Ratterree: Of the lines, so to speak, but that would be the other way to skin the cat.
Speaker 21: Gotcha.
Kevin Ratterree: Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 22: Nobody has mentioned this, but I've refrained from [inaudible 01:30:18] Old
Cypress, and she is just delighted with the fact that she could probably be able to
walk.
Kevin Ratterree: Or ride a bike.
Speaker 22: Or ride a bike. [crosstalk 01:30:30]
Kevin Ratterree: Ma'am.
Speaker 23: Nobody thinks ever thinks about the pedestrian that's walking in those parking
lots. I saw one of your photographs where you had a wide walkway with
[inaudible 01:30:48] either side, that would be great. You could walk on the
walkways instead of dodging cars that are backing up.
Kevin Ratterree: Right. [crosstalk 01:30:59]
Speaker 23: Yeah.
Kevin Ratterree: That's designed to be a walkway that connects here, all the way to here-
Speaker 23: Yeah.
Kevin Ratterree: And the only place that you have breaks in that walkway is that connection right
there, that's that [inaudible 01:31:10] there, and then obviously the drive over
here. The whole purpose of that is to give you a safe place to be able to walk
from one side to the other only crossing the street twice. Yes, ma'am?
170306_0020 Page 33 of 33
Speaker 24: When I bought my home in Riverstone, I was very happy that there is a large
preserve. I was told that that is because of the migration of the birds, that it's
very important environmentally. I was just wondering if you had enough of a
preserve area. You have all this asphalt that [inaudible 01:31:43] water, the
groundwater supply, and I just think that Collier County needs to be more
understanding of these preserve for the future generations more of land for the
animals and for the water supply.
Kevin Ratterree: What I would say to you, I am the last person you should direct that question to
because if you look at the design of Riverstone and you look at the design of
Stone Creek, about a third of each of those properties was set aside for low light
and for preservation. So we have spent a considerable amount of our
development area, in Collier county, setting up additional preserve area. What
you see here complies with the Collier County code, it complies with all the
standards that we're required to do, but as a developer, I think those two
projects alone give you the idea of the commitment that we made to participate
in those low [inaudible 01:32:51] concepts and preservation of that area. That's a
lot of property that we gave up, developable property, for those preservation
areas. So realize that I'm the last person because I get a lot of heat from my
corporate office about the amount of land we had to set aside for environmental
purpose and we did exactly that.
Speaker 24: Is that what's required? Are you just doing what's required? Are you doing any
more than what's required?
Kevin Ratterree: On this site, we're doing what's required in terms of preservation, correct. Off
site purchase, [inaudible 01:33:20].
Tim Hancock: We've been at this for 90 minutes, I promised when we started that I would try
my best to get you back where you want to be, home. There are my business
cards and [inaudible 01:33:35] business cards out on the table. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact any of us. We want to be conduits of
information for you. On behalf of GL and everyone present, we want to thank
you very much for your time tonight. [crosstalk 01:33:50]
How did we do?
If you rate this transcript 3 or below, this agent will not work on your
future orders
NAPLESNEWS.COM I MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2017 1 17A�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER
ORDINANCE(S)
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public
Hearing on December 12, 2017 commencing at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners
Chamber, Third Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL
The purpose of the hearing is to consider:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND
USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT,
URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT, TO URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOGAN BOULEVARDMVIMOKALEE ROAD
COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW A MAXM" OF 1001,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR
AREA FOR SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL USES; AND FURTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF WWOKALEE ROAD AND LOGAN BOULEVARD IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, CONSISTING OF 18.6± ACRES. [PL20160001100[
AN ORDINANCE OFTHE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAAMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY
AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPDD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE LOGAN/
IMMOKALEE CPDD, TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA FOR
SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL USES, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF i)VIMOKALEE ROAD AND
LOGAN BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 18.6± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
PROJECT
LOCATION
-00
1-75
/Immokalee RD
r: �
< o 0
o
;0
o z v N
w+c
S
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S) will
be made available for inspection at the GMD, Department, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning
Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for,inspection at the Collier County
Clerk's Office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, suite 401
Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should
be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section of the GMD Department, Zoning Division. Written
comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to December 12, 2017 will be read and
considered at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that
proceeding, and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this
proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact
the Collier County Facilities Management 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
PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk
November 27, 2017 ND -1835301