Agenda 06/10/2008 Item # 8B
Agenda Item No. 88
June 10, 2008
Page 1 of 94
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, KRG 951 and 41, LLC, represented by Q. Grady Minor, is
requesting a PUD Rezone from the Agricultural (A), Commercial Convenience (C-2),
General Commercial (C-4) and Artesa Pointe PUD zoning districts, to the Commercial
Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD, which
would aUow a maximum of 235,000 square feet of commercial uses. The 25.45-acre subject
property is located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) just south of Tamiami Trail (US 41),
in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
COMPANION ITEMS: PUDA-2007-AR-1l734 AND CPSS-06-01
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application to rezone the
subject property from the Rural Agricultural (A), Commercial Convenience (C-2), General
Commercial (C-4) and Artesa Pointe PUD zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) zoning district for a development to be known as the Tamiami Crossing
CPUD.
CONSIDERATIONS:
On the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the
subject property is designated both Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center No.
18), Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict. A
companion item to this rezone petition was submitted to the Comprehensive Planning
Department for a Small-Scale GMP Amendment (CPSS-06-01) to incorporate a 7.3-acre parcel
at the extreme southeastern corner ofthe property, designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict,
into Activity Center No. 18. Small-Scale Amendment CPSS-06-0l was approved by the BCC on
April 22, 2008; and after the expiration of the Department of Community Affairs' 30-day
challenge period, the entire site was designated Mixed Use Activity Center No. 18, except for
0.88 acres along the southernmost property boundary. This 0.88 acres remains part of the
Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict and is the subject of a second companion item, PUDA-
2007-AR-11734, described below.
PUDA-2007-AR-11734 (the "Artesa Pointe PUDA"), proposes to remove 0.88 acres from the
Artesa Pointe PUD (shown in hatch marks in Attachment A) to incorporate this acreage into the
proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD, as stated above. As the Henderson Creek Subdistrict in
which the 0.88 acres is located is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial
uses, and the approved Artesa Pointe PUD already allows this maximum 325,000 square feet, no
commercial development would be eligible for this acreage. Instead, this area would only qualify
for use as a surface parking lot to meet the parking demands of the CPUD (as noted on the
Master Plan).
,.-.
The Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.06.C.3, Commercial Planned Unit
Development District, provides for CPUDs to include the entire range of uses permitted in the
Page 1 of 11
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 2 of 94
General Commercial (C-I) through the Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning districts. The proposed
CPUD, if approved, would allow for 235,000 square feet of general commercial and retail uses
consistent with these districts. A maximum zoned height of 60 feet would be permitted for the
principal structures, with actual height, including appurtenances, permitted a maximum of 67
feet. The project is bordered by US 41 to the north and CR 951 to the west. The Master Plan
indicates that the project would have two access points from Collier Boulevard and three from
US 41.
As shown in the PUD documents (see Appendix I, Exhibit E), the applicant is requesting four
deviations from the design standards of the Land Development Code and has provided
justification to support these deviations. Staff has analyzed these deviations and provides the
following analyses and recommendations:
Deviation 1 seeks relief from the requirement of LDC Section 4.06.02, only for the portion of
the site immediately north of Tract A (see Exhibit C of the Ordinance), which requires a
landscape buffer between platted commercial building lots. According to the petitioner, the
purpose of this deviation is to permit a travel aisle in this area to facilitate the circulation of traffic
on the site. As noted in the staff report, staff originally did not support this deviation because it
was being requested for all of the areas located between separately platted lots and, therefore,
would have amounted to an unconditional waiver of the landscaping required between separately
platted lots. However, at the hearing, the applicant narrowed the scope of the deviation so that it
applied only to the area immediately north of Tract A Because of its more restrictive application
and the fact that the applicant has committed to providing additional landscaping along Collier
Boulevard (to screen the site from this roadway, as described below in Deviation No. 3 and
depicted in Exhibit G of the Ordinance), staff recommends approval of this deviation.
Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.C.l, which permits a maximum of two 80-
square-foot on-premises pole or monument signs per public street frontage, as the petitioner
would like to permit an on-premises pole or monument sign at each of the site's three accesses
along its US 41 frontage, having a maximwn cumulative area of 160 square feet. The applicant
has invoked the safe and efficient travel of the development's users as justification for this
deviation.
LDC Section 5.06.04.C. states that shopping centers having frontage of 150 feet or more on a
public street shall be permitted one pole or ground sign measuring 80 square feet, iflocated along
an arterial roadway; and that an additional sign may be permitted provided there is a minimum
1000-foot separation between the two signs. The provision further states that, "[i]n no case shall
the nwnber of pole or ground signs exceed two per street frontage."
Although the subject property's entire US 41 frontage measures approximately 2,200 feet, which
would result in the three signs proposed by the applicant only being 739 feet and 860 feet apart
instead of the 1,000 feet required (see the monument signs locations on the Conceptual Master
Plan on page three), staff supports the proposed deviation since the proposed cumulative area of
the signage would be the equivalent of two signs at 80 square feet each, which is the maximum
signage area permitted by the LDC.
Page 2 of 11
Agenda Item No. 86
June 10. 2008
Page 3 of 94
Deviation 3 seeks relief from Section S.OS.08.E., which permits no more than SO percent of the
required parking for interior lots to be located between the primary fayade of a building and its
abutting street. The applicant would like to permit 100 percent of the required parking between
its primary f~ade and the Collier Boulevard frontage, justifying doing so because of the irregular
shape of a parcel. Architectural Review staff supports this deviation with the applicant's
enhanced landscape buffer commitment depicted in Exhibit G, which would serve to moderate
the impact of the project's resultant expanse of parking by diminishing its view from Collier
Boulevard.
Deviation 4 seeks relief from Section S.03.02.E., which requires a masonry wall between
commercial and residential properties. Because the RSF-3 abutting the northwest border of the
site is actually occupied by an Embarq station that is surrounded by other commercial uses;
and the residential uses of Artesa Pointe to the south would be separated from the CPUD by a
collector roadway and the subject site's preserve/water management area, it is staff's opinion
that the Type B landscape buffers alone provided at these interfaces would be sufficient to
mitigate any conflicts between the uses. As such, staff supports this waiver.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The rezoning action, in and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no
guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development,
however, if the CPUD is approved, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new
development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities.
The County collects all applicable impact fees before the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts of each new development on its public facilities. These impact fees are used to
fund projects identified in the Growth Management Plan's (GMP) Capital Improvement Element
(CIE) as needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally,
in order to meet the requirements of Section 10.02.0?(C) of the Land Development Code, fifty
percent ofthe estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project are required to be
paid simultaneously with the approval of each final local development order. Other fees collected
before the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees
associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system.
Please note that the inclusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes
only; they are not included in the criteria used by Staff and the Planning Commission to analyze
this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMP ACT:
As previously stated, the subject property is designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
(Activity Center No. 18), Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and Henderson Creek Mixed Use
Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
and Map Series. This area includes or18.1S acres of A, C-2, and C-4 zoned properties. A petition
for or?3 acres, currently zoned A and designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, has been
submitted to the Comprehensive Planning Department for a Small Scale Growth Management
Plan Amendment to incorporate the acreage into Activity Center No.18. This CPUD rezone is
Page30f11
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10. 2008
Page 4 of 94
therefore contingent upon approval of that GMP amendment; and if approved, the entire site
would be designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict except for the qforementioned 0.88
acres, which would remain under the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict designation.
Artesa Pointe PUD presently comprises all of the Henderson Creek Subdistrict, and the
companion item to this rezone (PUDA-2007-AR-11734) seeks an amendment to remove 0.88
acres from its boundaries. As the Henderson Creek Subdistrict is limited to a maximum of
325,000 square feet of commercial uses (as is the Artesa Pointe PUD), if the 0.88 acres were
incorporated into the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD, it would still remain within the
Henderson Creek Subdistrict and, therefore, would not be eligible for commercial development.
The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial
zoning in locations where traffi.c impacts can readily be accommodated in order to avoid strip
and disorganized patterns of commercial development and to create focal points within the
community.
Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows:
"Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned
Unit Development. There shaH be no minimum acreage limitalion for such Planned Unit
Developments except requests for rezoning musl meet the requirements for rezoning in the
Land Development Code." The project was submitted as a Commercial Planned Unit
Development.
"The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial
uses, within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of Mixed Use Activity
Center." The proposed development is located within Activity Center No. 18. The area within
the proposed CPUD is currently vacant. The property is zoned C-2, C-4 and A, and is compatible
with the surrounding zoning within the Activity Center boundaries (more specific commercial
analysis was submitted with the GMP amendment petition). The surrounding area within a two-
mile radius consists ofC-2, C-4, PUD, A, and residential uses.
"Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide
to explore thefeasibility of the requested land uses." No market study was submitted with this
application. However, as stated, the site is presently zoned C-2, C-4 and A Further, the CPUD
document proposes retail, office, professional and business service uses that are compatible with
the existing commercial zoning in Activity No. 18 and within a two road-mile area. (As noted
above, a more specific commercial analysis was submitted with the GMP amendment petition.)
"Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial
miles. " There is a variety of existing land uses within Activity Center No. 18 and within two
radial miles, including commercial, residential single-family, residential multi-family and mixed-
use PUDs.
"Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads." The project proposes access to US
41 and Collier Boulevard. Transportation Planning Department has reviewed this petition for
Page 4 of 11
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10. 2008
Page 5 of 94
adequate road capacity and has recommended approval, subject to the developer commitments
contained in Exhibit F.
"Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining
properties." Compatibility is required by FLUE Policy 5.4. Comprehensive Planning staff defers
a compatibility determination to the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff
as part of their review of this petition in its entirety.
"Natural or man-made constraints." Staff is not aware of any physical constraints to the
development of this property.
"Rezoning criteria identified in the Land DlNelopment Cod!!." This criterion is reviewed by
Zoning and Land Development Review staff in the "Zoning Review" portion of this report.
"Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers
contained in the Land DlNelopment Code." Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the
petition for compliance with access requirements, and necessary provisions have been included
in Exhibit F of the CPUD Document,
"Coordinate traffic flow on-site, as may be demonstrated by a TraffIC Impact Analysis, and a
site plan/lIUlSter plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point location and type,
median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on
the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian
interconnections." A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted, and the petition has undergone a
detailed traffic review by the Transportation Planning Department.
"Interconnection(s) for pedestrian, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future
adjacent projects." The project proposes two vehicular and pedestrian interconnects to the
Artesa Pointe PUD located along the project's southwestern and southeastern boundaries.
"Conformance with architectural design standards as identified in the Land DlNelopment
Cod!!." Specific architectural design provisions of the LDC shall apply. However, staff leaves the
determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review Department as part of their review.
Policy 5.4:
Requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development
Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety; however, would note that in
reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the
compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or
nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building
heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic
generation/attraction, etc.
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
Page 5 of 11
Agenda Item No. 88
June 10. 2008
Page 6 of 94
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Along US 41, a
principal arterial highway, the conceptual CPUD Master Plan depicts two right-in/right-outs and
one full access (the southernmost); and along CR 951, a minor arterial highway, it shows two
right-in/right -outs.
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 to minimize the need for
traffic signals. A loop road is not depicted on the conceptual CPUD Master Plan due to the
unusual shape of the site; however, the Master Plan depicts parking lot aisles that do connect US-
41 and Collier Boulevard.
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and
their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
regardless of land use type. Although the conceptual CPUD Master Plan allows for two
potential vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the proposed Tarniarni Crossings
CPUD and the Artesa Pointe PUD, the interconnections themselves should be absolute and
expected to be part of the SDP or plat. (To address this issue, a developer commitment has been
included in Exhibit F, 2.F.7., requiring two vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to the
south.)
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. Being a CPUD, there are no residential densities; however, the development standards and
conditions are consistent with other similar types of commercial planned unit developments.
FLUE Conclusion:
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed rezone may be found consistent
with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management
Plan states, "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable
federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish this, Policy 2.2.2 asserts, "In order
to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be
designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is
made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine
system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or
enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry
detention areas, a lake and wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation
during storm events.
Page 6 of 11
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 7 of 94
Pursuant to Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.1, a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement will
be provided to staff and the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for their review.
The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the
Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME), for the following reasons:
Greater than fifteen percent of the existing native vegetation will be retained on-site as preserve
and will be protected by a permanent conservation mechanism to prohibit further development.
Selection of preserves are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1.
In accordance with Policies 6.1.1 (6) and 6.1.4, habitat management and exotic vegetation
removallmaintenance plans shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction
Plan submittaL Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive
exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, as required by Policy 6.2.6.
Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site
Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum
planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7 and the LDC.
The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been
satisfied.
Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to
Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final
local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan/Construction
Plans). As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies
allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such
impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands
and the natural functions of wetlands within this area.
In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master
plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are identified in the PUD document and are in
accordance with the uses identified in Policy 6.2.5. Uses within preserve areas shall not include
any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish
and wildlife conservation and preservation.
Wildlife surveys for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species are
required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittaL
GMP Conclusion:
The Growth Management Plan is the prevailing document supporting land use decisions such as
the proposed CPUD. Staff is required to make a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the
overall GMP as part of its recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a
rezoning petition. Staff believes this petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as
indicated above, contingent upon approval of the companion Small Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendment; and with the GMP, including the CCME and Transportation Element, as noted.
Page 7 of 11
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 8 of 94
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses may be deemed consistent with
the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
Approval of this CPUD would have no affordable housing impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed the application and the CPUD document to address
environmental concerns. The applicant has committed to providing 3.43 acres of native
vegetation on the site; however, has not provided staff with the commitment to supply an
analysis demonstrating that post-development pollutant loading will be less than or equal to
predevelopment loading, prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. As such, staff
included this commitment as a condition of approval. This petition was required to have a
hearing before the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) on March 5, 2008, the outcome of
which is described in the following EAC portion of this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
This petition was heard by the EAC on March 5, 2008, and received a unanimous vote (8-0) to
be forwarded to the CCPC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following
condition:
. Stormwater management control elevation discharge shall be 4.9 feet NGVD or above.
As noted, staff incorpomted this condition into its stipulations for approval.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) heard this petition at their March 20, 2008
meeting, and voted 5-3 to forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval,
subject to the following revisions to the CPUD document:
,"~-,
1. The prohibition of tattooing establishments (Group 7299);
2. Front yard setback requirements from Tamiami Trail (US 41) East and Collier Boulevard
(CR 951) to be one-foot for every two feet of zoned building height, but not less than 25
feet;
3. Accessory use setbacks to be the same as for the principal structure;
4. To apply the deviation from Subsection 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which requires
landscaping buffers between separately platted commercial lots, only to the area
immediately north of Tract A;
5. To provide a covered pedestrian walkway, as described in Subsection 2.D.2 of Exhibit F
of the CPUD document;
6. The provision of stormwater management discharge at 4.9 feet NGVD or above; and
7. To provide an analysis demonstrating that post-development pollutant loading will be
less than or equal to predevelopment loading in general accordance with the Harvey
Page8of11
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 9 of 94
Harper methodology for review and approval by County Environmental staff at the time
of site development plan review.
One of the commissioners opposed to recommending approval for the project was of the
opinion that it failed to comply with the following Rezone Findings of the staff report
(Attachment A to the staff report): 1.,6.,7., 10., 12., 14., 17.
This commissioner also believed the project to be inconsistent with the following PUD
Findings of the staff report (Attachment B to the staff report): 1.,3,.6.,7.,8.
Staff has not received any letters of objection to this project from the community.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a site specific rezone from an "A" Agriculture Zoning District, a C-2 Commercial
Convenience Zoning District, a C-4 General Commercial Zoning District and a 0.88-acre portion
of the Artesia Pointe PUD to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District
for a project to be known as Tamiami Crossing CPUD. Site specific rezones are quasi-judicial in
nature. As such 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 Of for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions
may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening requirements.
Page9of11
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 10 of 94
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 litefal
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?
II. 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 dmwn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed Of changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of tmffic 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 Of development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
Page 10 of 11
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 11 of 94
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
aItemtion which would be fequired 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 oj 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. I 06, article 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 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. (MMSS)
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation that the BCC approve PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, the requested Deviations
outlined in this report (included as Exhibit F to the Ordinance) and the CCPC recommendations.
PREPARED BY:
John-David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
Page 11 of 11
~
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page lof2
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 12 of 94
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
88
At the petitioner's request, this item is continued to the July 22, 2008 Bee meeting. This item
must be heard AFTER PUOA-2007-AR-11734 and requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-
10875. Q Grady Minor, representing KRG 951 and 41, LLC, has submitted a PUD Rezone for
Tamiami Crossing CPUD. The applicant proposes to rezone the A (Agricultural), C-2
(Commercial Convenience), C-4 (General Commercial Zoning) Districts and Artesa Points
PUD to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district. This is to allow
development of commercial land uses with a maximum of 235,000 square feet. The property
consists of +/~ 25.45 acres and is located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida (Companion item to PUDA-2007-AR-11734).
6/10/2008 90000 AM
Prepared By
John~David Moss
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Senior Planner
Date
Zoning & Land Development
5/15/20089:17:45 AM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
5/15/200812:08 PM
Approved By
Susan Murray, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Zoning & land Development Director
Date
Approved By
Zoning & land Development Review
5/28/2008 8:58 AM
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
5/28/20087:50 PM
Approved By
Ray Bellows
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Chief Planner
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
S/29/200810:52 AM
Approved By
Date
,(
County Attorney
Marjorie M. Student~Stirling Assistant County Attorney
County Attorney Office
5/29/20082:08 PM
Approved By
OMS Coordinator
OMS Coordinator
Date
file://C:\AgendaTest\Export\ I 09-June%20 1 0,%202008\08. %20ADVER TISED%20PUBLlC... 6/4/2008
Ol""""
coO'"
O~
ON 0
Z -U")
O~
E~ a>
~c:g>
ro~a..
l:l
C
<lJ
'"
<(
on
...
'"
"
~
'"
<(
,
CO
"
"
'"
,
N
0
::>
0.
..
z
2
, !:
I-
W
0.
0..
0::(
~
Z
0
-
I-
<C
(j
0
--l
<t i
. ~.
Ik-"1:ll ON>\n"(II li:lnm
l'lI:;IlIQlJQr/ ~
-
, IE
e
[J
,
.
I-
. ~!
"
- i
!
I@
"ilK
t15
w_
~!;(
00
:Eg
.
.(Qh'!\n'IOlI1Bi'Tn:)
'"~
.
!
,
~
.
.
a.
<C
:2
(!)
z
z
o
N
~ Z<H 15iJl
0 U@
z ~"
(IlCO,," ;; ~~
"'-'<'" goo ..~!i!
~ o 0 ill"
0 13- o~~
,,~.. "",
'" w~ ~~~ <Ill
E"';:"-- ~ll' 18"
W.,Q) ~ " ci"
"'5 I:i'ii\ ~~
::::ccu ",0
<ll "0.. ;;ll' I!l~z
,,' ~'<l:
~!1 <>-
c O;/il! g;
<J) il!E
en ~>w
<{ U li1" h ,
h~ I
;;~ ~5fn~ z- I
n ffi..z 8~
~15Q~ W
"0
'< ::Ji!!
,,>- ~~~i:
zw ~~
85 ,,~!!!~
",z wO w ,,~ .
-0 ",w u !1t!1:i
z5 <;;in -<I);:
~- ll'>->-ii! SUJ~
DW<
~ o:l::r::z:o ~i!=~
~ <1)0 ~>- u
~g ;t,<~~ 0""
zo",
z "' oJ M
l
!
.
l!
Ii
f3 Z I
l'J 5
.. I
" ..
'" "I"
OJ '"
1] ..<
I~ ffi' Ii:
i5 ~;t
~ Wi? Ii
" iO
'~i ~ "
6l~ Z
~~ 8 .
" ~~
"~
- g :> if I;l ~
c ", .. ~ .
.' . ... "I '
. u;:;~:___._:! ; i I ~
.'. ,!!\!,
,
.. ,
~ !. .
.'
., n'.T"~
; ) il ~
I: ~
l~
;: :1
~
If..'--" ..-....... .
liII!,
"- l. )
1
d
!!
h
@~
,
'"
-,
! t
~ .1
.p
'.O,.~
~.. ,
~
~
~
ill
" ~
~ '"
0 ~
,"-". 0," <I) I
Itw <:>
I "," ~
~ ~~ w <:>
ti: z
'" gj "' <(
"" " '"
"'0 '" w ;'! z ~
~ ,'" a It ~
'" "0 " D m
w i!! ~8 ~ " u; a. o. i
to ~~
'" u; ii; .
<:> G)@ e @ .
e
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 17 of 94
PURPOSEfDESCRlPTlON OF PROJECT:
On the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the
subject property is designated both Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center
No. 18), Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict. A
companion item to this rezone petition has been submitted to the Comprehensive Planning
Department for a Small Scale GMP Arnendmcnt (CPSS-06-0l) to incorporate a 7.3-acre
parcel at the extreme southeastem corner of the property, designated Urban Coastal Fringe
Subdistrict, into Activity Center No. 18. If approved, thc entire site would then be
designated Mixed Use Activity Center No. 18 except for 0.88 acres along the southemffiost
pfoperty boundary, which would remain part of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use
Subdistrict and which is the subject of a second companion item, PUDA-2007-AR-11734,
described below.
PUDA-2007-AR-11734 (the "Artesa Pointe PUDA"), proposes to remove 0.88 acres from
the Artesa Pointe PUD to incorporate this acreage into the proposed Tamiami Crossing
CPUD, as previously stated (this area is shown in hatch marks on the preceding page). As
the Henderson Creek Subdistrict in which the 0.88 acres is located is limited to a maximum
of 325,000 square feet of commercial-and the approved Artesa Pointe PUD already
allows this maximum 325,000 square fcct-no commercial development would be eligible
fOf this acreage. Instead, this area would only qualify for use as a surface parking lot to
meet the parking dcmands ofthe CPUD (as noted onlhe Master Plan).
LDC Section 2.03.06.C.3, Commercial Planned Unit Development District, provides for
CPUDs to include the entire range of uses permitted in the General Commercial (C-I)
through the Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning districts. The proposcd CPUD, if approved,
would allow for 235,000 squarc fcct of gencral COllliJ1ercial and retail uses consistent with
these districts. A maximum zoned hcight of 60 feet would bc permitted for the principal
'<'" '.1 '.'- I" ';-~"';;W--$~~""'".~i"";l'~
' d~ /J ~. '_,',l- I>;..~Z". . "\.'.. "<.:..~-'.'!'~~-"'''~,':!i~n1,"'J"
':;'.'~';:!' '.?\, '",'-'1:-k-, .'~. -"'~ iO"i:N~~~Ij;J< .....,,~ '-\j,~., "'""0.... <Cclc~~~r:,"~"l~:~~:,'
Nf~'~JC"';'...~~~..L1,(>A~~rtL'i... t.~' ,-,', r " . 1'\," ~'i"~ 'i ~,--.::.~>,- ""~ "', ,I":;:' {:'\~%
~- g/'~'t ,,~p;'1'01 "~"-"'~" ~~ '~l,(t/ -'" L . "!?,\~r~'f i1'~\ '&" 'JlI'~~"~tI,K~;:~{';\;
~y,,:"~,,~~~>,},! "-.;'":?'i~>~~r\:' . ~ -,'~ '''''''~;:}~,.\~\ ~~ :::::~''1 "'e:.~~ ~x. \}"_~':'\
:tc:.~~~t:'Pqf '!fI'., , "~f c "."""~'r"'~\' l\""~~' ~\'e;}"'t
~~t~~~~?c'"l~li.";,J,\.,.> '~.:. '!\'I-~,,'\,j}/t,,~) . ~_ Jt:' "!\. - -f''tfi~
<"-'~M(:~.':i ll.,)';, "~~'-'" ""I,;:;..;:::,t,,:::~!,r..7,,-;; ~ ~ ~r~j.l~ I", x1\.:,
" ; ~I \Th: Iy I' I' ~Ah"'''~ ~ ,c di(iq~'''";'''>Ij,<h~;,.....t:~l~ ~~.t~<,:i';.Jf,.C-',,;:'''''''--:>;,,_ "..:.
.., \ ~\.."-iJ J "t~ "',.'. ~ { ,.~ j~ ~'. ~. '1i'-"",,:,lWi6 ~ l~," \,
.~.~ _.\./1: ,,' ..",.~ 'i..;". " '\ " -, ';''':'''''}"'' ''':';_j! ""S@;;,Z' <,
;-..': ~~.1~1 . ~! ". ,.... '.'c '~ . j ;:-"<... ~'=.-"'''>.:\1f;~' '?I\ \\1_
'"I <' r.!~ I" .' " ., ,.. !:l" '. "",\,\\~,,_,
,-=-,1 ". -I" 't t 'I~" ., , )~' ,.:\ " ",' ;~~'-t~~.
;, "~'.'lJ( '., If'"., ',." " ". "." ,;;., ,. "1,,,,--,,-, '.
~" I;;; <1-_"\ 1';;;1(:'"1 t -" I .' ~ .... I\'l"ilt""""\,
..., \>~,\.......( "I, t~i1\' >'.'.:.."';_:..,__ ,~, / ''''',,,,,:\\~. #:*'"
~;,:.I" '0, ,_ .,.co .'... '%.~,~
';&~i:..' "' " :,'.1: -' ;; . ';, ,s" k '"\~ryl: ""'~rt;;r'~':~\'It
&.~':';"'r,'I' j ',' ('J 'j" ~~~'~.^';, j,. ~~ _
,,:,. ....-'\/-1'..' .~" ".,i-' !,1':.'v< ~''-Y ,r"t., . ", -;
~" ,,'~:J;,(i":-;;" " ,~.,\,t:.\'.. ~,_ _~,
-. "'-"JIJ"il,/ ..; ;'..~,:. ;'~). '.'; .,.,., : _', :-:":-J':. ~
::" '~:.0;ii:':i'i..",.1 , _ '--:--, . ,,:'.':~~:;~}~;; :,
'.'-1 ~L\. _ .' "i',' -'-'"".'-- :....:.___ _ ,,- . ., ,-v,..
", .', ,.",';"''-"&l.t1!.,,,,,-~<, -'~;;m;"-'-'"'--~"" i._'~'", , '.,,',",,\;;
r' ,"tl-;; ,11 f r~(~' - '. Ij~(,~f}fi;~\~lS,Ji ~::-'t,~u .. '<-';:~:'f,i
~..~.".{t,~/}.:lll~Tl.~" .''--1'" -;! ~'l@l~i:'-f;'~1,.J ,~~*~"'~ ';::
lil'..,~,~;:\.t'h! . ;,,-=-,"J~....,;,.;!'!J 4 ;,-~,;:"~~~: . . .),
~1:'~~r''";~:t)II\1 ",~,"/ ~. ~}l~ ~ ~ /~t ~1,'~k;' '~ . ~~. ",'
. '"w. I I" .'. \ 'c.," ,1>-.<, '<0'. :. ~ . "<:.,;_,' ,'/i'i
') -j," ',~~, --? ~-"''-'i[&~ ff'':' ';;~.. '~~~(_, I ~~~I.k""~"'\..: ~ ;"',"",
' - '\ r , '~'if' -........' t.~, l(t '/ 'Je,.. ~"'-: '~II'iJi-"'I<.'ir8: .'//.
'I [~. ',. r '- jdj , "'. '~'p, <<1">>_ "
- ,-. , - ~ ~ , ".'"
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, Tamiami Crossing
2
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 18 0194
structures, with actual height, including appurtenances, permitted a maxin1Um height of 67 feet.
The project is bordered by US 41 to the north and CR 951 to the west. The Master Plan
indicates that the project would have two access points from Collier Boulevard and three from
US 41.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
West:
US 41, then a CVS Pharmacy, undeveloped land and commercial uses; zoned
Commercial Convenience (C-2), General Commercial (C-4) and Heavy Commercial
(C-5)
State-owned conservation land; zoned Rural Agricultural (A)
Wal-Mart and Habitat for Humanity single-family residences; zoned Artesa Pointe
PUD
Shell gas station and Circle- K, then CR-951 and commercial uses; zoned C-4,
Residential Single Family (RSF-3) (an Embarq telecommunications station) and Eagle
Creek PUD
North:
East:
Soutb:
GMP CONSISTENCY:
As previously stated, the subject property is designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
(Activity Center No. 18), Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and Hendcrson Creek Mixed Use
Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element and on thc Future Land Use Map and Map Series.
This area includes ,"18.15 acrcs of A, C-2, and C-4 zoned properties. A petition for '"7.3 acres,
cUlTently zoned A and designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, has been submitted to the
Comprehensive Planning Depaltment for a Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment
to incorporatc the acreage into Activity Ccnter No.l8. This CPUD rezone is therefore
contingent upon approval of that GMP amendment; and if approved, the entire site would be
dcsignated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict except for the ajiJrementioned 0.88 acres,
which would remain under the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict designation.
Aitesa Pointe PUD presently comprises all of the Henderson Crcek Subdistrict, and the
companion item to this rezone (PUDA-2007-AR-1I734) seeks an amclldment to remove 0.88
acres from its boundaries. As the Henderson Creek Subdistrict is limitcd to a maximum of
325,000 square feet of commercial uses (as is the Artesa Pointe PUD), if the 0.88 acres were
incorporated into the proposed Tamiami C1'Ossing CPUD, it would still remain within the
Henderson Creek Subdistrict and, therefore, would not be eligible for commercial
development.
The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict is dcsigncd to concentrate almost all new
commercial zoning in locations whcre traffic impacts can readily be accommodated in order to
avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development and to create focal points
within the community.
Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition al.e as follows:
~
PUDZ.2006-AR-10875, Tamiami Crossing
3
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 190194
"Rezones witltin Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in tile form of a Planned
Unit Development, Tllere sllall be no minimum acreage limitation for sucll Planned Unit
Developments except requests for rezoning must meet tile requirements for rezoning in tile
Land Development Code." The project was submitted as a Commercial Planned Unit
Development.
"Tlle amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed
commercial uses, witllin tlte Mixed Use Activity Center and witllin two road miles of Mixed
Use Activity Center. "
The proposed development is located within Activity Center No. 18. The area within the
proposed CPUD is currently vacant. The propeliy is zoned C-2, C-4 and A, and is compatible
with the surrounding zoning wjthin the Activity Center boundarics (more specific commercial
analysis was submitted with the OMp amendment petition). The surrounding area within a
two-mile radius consists ofC-2, C-4, PUD, A, and residential uses.
"Market demand and service area for tlte proposed conunercialland uses to be used as a
guide to explore tile feasibility of the J'equested land uses." No market study was submitted
with this application. However, as stated, the site is presently zoned C-2, C-4 and A. Further,
the CPUD document proposes retail, office, professional and business service uses that are
compatible with the existing corrunercial zoning in Activity No. 18 and within a two road-mile
area. (As noted above, a more specific commercial analysis was submitted with the GMP
amendment pctition.)
"Existing patterns of land use within tile Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial
miles." There is a variety of existing land uses within Activity Center No. 18 and within two
radial miles, including commcrcial, residential single-family, residential multi-family and
mixed-use PUDs.
"Adequacy of iIifrastructure capacity, particularly roads." The project proposes access to US
41 and Collier Boulevard. Transportation Planning Department has reviewed this petition for
adcquate road capacity and has recommended approval, subjcct to the developer commitments
contained in Exhibit F.
"Compatibility of tlte pl'Oposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining
properties." Compatibility is required by FLUE Policy 5.4. Comprehensive Planning staff
defers a compatibility determination to the Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety.
"Natural or man-made constraints." Staff is not aware of any physical constraints to the
development of this property.
"Rezoning criteria identified in tlte Laml Development Code." This criterion is reviewed by
Zoning and Land Development Review staff in thc "Zoning Review" portion of this report.
"Conformance with Access Management Plan provision.y for Mixed Use Activity Centers
contained in tile Land Development Code." TranspOliation Planning staff has reviewed the
PUDZ-2006-AR-J0875, Tamiami Crossing
4
Agenda Item No. 88
June 10, 2008
Page 20 of 94
petition for compliance with access requirements, and necessary provisions have been included
in Exhibit F of the CPUD Document,
"Coordinate traffic flow on-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a
site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point location and type,
median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on
the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian
interconnections." A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted, and the petition has undergone a
detailed traffic review by the Transportation Planning Department.
"Interconnection(s) for pedestrian, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future
adjacent projects," The project proposes two vehicular and pedestrian interconnects to the
Artesa Pointe PUD located along the project's southwestern and southeastern boundaries.
"Conformance with architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development
Code." Specific afchitectural design provisions of the LDC shall apply. However, staff leaves
the determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review Department as part of their
review.
Policy 5.4:
Requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Plamling staff leaves this dctermination to Zoning and Land Development
Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety; however, would note that in
reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the
compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or
nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building
heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic
generation/attraction, etc.
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 uf the Land Development Code.
Along US 41, a principal arterial highway, the conceptual CPUD Master Plan depicts two
right-in/right-outs and one full access (the southernmost); and along CR 951, a minor arterial
highway, it shows two right-inlright-outs.
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop ruads in an effort to help reduce
vehicle congestion on nearby collector and artel'ial roads and to minimize the need for
traffic signals. A loop road is not depicted on the conceptual CPUD Master Plan due to the
unusual shape of the site; however, the Master Plan depicts parking lot aisles that do connect
US-41 and Collier Boulevard.
.r----
PUDZ-2006-AR-J0875, Tamiami Cmssing
5
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 21 of 94
Policy 7.3:
All ncw and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and
their intcrconnection points with adjoining ncighborhoods or other' devclopments
rcgardless of land use type, Although the conceptual CPUD Mastel' Plan allows fOf two
potential vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the proposed Tamiami Crossings
CPUD and the Artesa Pointe PUD, the interconnections themselves should be absolute and
expected to be part of the SDP or plat. (To address this issue, a developer commitment has
been included in Exhibit F, 2.F.7., requiring two vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to
the south.)
Policy 7.4
Thc County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a
blend of dcnsities, common open spaces, civic facilitics and a range of housing prices and
typcs. Being a CPUD, there are no residential densities; however, the developmcnt standards
and conditions are consistent with other similar types of commercial planned unit
developments.
FLUE CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed
rezone may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth
Management Plan states, "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet
all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish this, Policy 2.2.2
asserts, "In order to limit the specific and clUnulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater
systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving
waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water
(discharge) to thc cstuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or
enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry
detention areas, a lake and wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation
during stann events.
Pursuant to Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.1, a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement will
be provided to staff and the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for their review.
The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the
Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons:
. Greater than fifteen percent of the existing native vegctation will be retained on-site as
preserve and will be protected by a permanent conservation mechanism to prohibit
further development. Selection of preSClves are consistent with the criteria listcd in
Policy 6.1.1.
PUDZ-2006-AR-J0875, Tamiami Crassing
6
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 22 of 94
. In accordance with Policies 6.1.1 (6) and 6.1.4, habitat management and exotic
vegetation removaVmaintenance plans shall be required at the time of Site Development
Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free
of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council,
as required by Policy 6.2.6.
. Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of
Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the
minimum planting area requiTement in Policy 6. 1.7 and the LDC,
. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8
has been satisfied,
. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as requiTed in Policies 6.2.1 and 6,2.2.
Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the
issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements (Site
Development Plan/Construction Plans), As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6,2.4, where
permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban
Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet
the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and thc natural functions of
wetlands within this area.
. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD
master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are identified in the PUD
document and arc in accordance with the uses identified in Policy 6.2.5, Uses within
preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water
conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation.
. Wildlife surveys for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed
species are required at the time of Site Dcvelopmellt Plan/Construction Plan submittal.
GMP Conclusion:
The Growth Management Plan is the prevailing document supporting land use dccisions such
as the proposed CPUD. Staff is required to make a finding of consistency or inconsistency with
the overall GMP as palt of its recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial
of a rezoning petition. Staff believes this petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as
indicated above, contingent upon approval of the companion Small Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendment; and with the GMP, including the CCME and Transportation Element, as noted,
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses may be deemed consistcnt
with the goals, objective and policies ofthe overall GMP.
~
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the LDC criteria
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, Tamiami Crossing
7
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 23 of 94
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13.B.5. and
1O.03.05.H, which establish factual bases to support a recommendation. The Collicr County
Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation
to the Board of County Conmlissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their
action on the rezoning request. These cvaluations are completed as separate documents, and
have been attached to the staffreport as Exhibits A and B. In addition to these documents, staff
offers the following analysis:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the application and the
CPUD document to address environmental concerns. The applicant has committed to providing
3.43 acres of native vegetation on the site; however, has not provided staff with the commitment
to supply an analysis demonstrating that post-development pollutant loading will be less than or
equal to predevelopment loading, prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. As such,
this commitment has been included by staff as a condition of approval. This petition was
required to have a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) on March 5,
2008. The outcome of that hearing is described in the EAC portion of this staff report, below.
TranslJortation Review: Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petition and the
applicant has incorporated Transportation staffs revisions within the CPUD document. Thc US
41 consOltium Developer's Contribution Agreement to provide capacity improvements for the
project has been approved by the BCC, and the Consortium is actively pursuing their required
project bond, which is yet to be posted. As such, Transportation Planning staff is recommending
approval of the petition, subject to the transpOliation-related commitments contained in the
CPUD document, and will withhold all Certificates of Occupancy until the necessary bond is
posted.
Utility Review: The project's location is within the Collier County Watef and Sewer District
Service Area. The project is subject to tbe conditions associated with a Watcr and Sewer
Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. Per the County's GIS, there are
an existing 20-inch water main and a 12-inch force main along Collier Boulevard, as well as a
l6-inch water main and al6-inch force main along the Tamiami TraiL
Emerf!encv Manaf!ement: The Tamiami Crossing CPUD is located in a CAT I Hurricane Surge
Zone and requires evacuation during many hurricane cvents, However, this is a commercial
project with no residential units proposed; therefore, the Emcrgency Management Depaliment
has no issues with this CPUD.
Zoninf! Review: As depicted on the CrUD Master Plan, included as Exhibit C of the CPUD
documents, the site is generally bifurcated, having commercial uses on one side and a
preserve/stormwater management area on the other. As a result of this design approach,
compatibility with surrounding parcels is achieved since the proposed commercial uses are
adjacent to existing commercially-zoned properties (except for one parcel zoned RSF-3, but
which is occupied by an Embarq telecommunications station); and the proposed preserve and
water management area appropriately abut the preserve area and residential uses of the of the
Artesa Pointe PUD and adjacent State-owned A-zoned land. The subject site would be buffercd
from the commercial uses to the nOJih by US 41 and a 20-foot wide Type D landscape butTer, as
required by the LDC for all commercial uses adjacent to rights-of-way. The State-owned
PUDZ-2006-AR-J0875, Tamiami Crossing
8
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 24 of 94
conservation land to the east would be adequately separated from the CPUD by a tcn.foot wide
Type A buffer. A 10-foot wide buffer is proposed along the entire shared length of the Artesa
Pointe boundary to the south. This buffer is proposed to bc a Type D where it abuts the project's
southemmost entrance at Collier Boulevard, along the project's interface with Artesa Pointe's
commercial uses; and a Type A at the project's interface with Artesa Pointe's nature
preserve/water management area. The buffer would also be Type A along the subject property's
3.43-acre native preserve, and would increase to a Type B buffer where the project's water
management area abuts the residential uses of Artesa Pointe. To the west, the subject propetty
would be separated from other cOlIunercial uses along CR 951 by a 10-foot wide Type A buffer.
However, because the aforementioned Embarq station is actually located on a parcel zoned
RSF-3, a Type B buffer would be provided as required by the LDC. According to LDC Section
5.03.02.E., a masonry wall should also be provided at cach of the property's interfaces with the
two adjacent residentially-zoned properties. However, the applicant has requested a waivef of
this requirement, described in the "Deviations" section of this report, below.
The CPUD's development standards are contained in Exhibit B, Table L of the CPUD
document. As the uses proposed for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD are consistent with those
permitted in the C-I through the C-5 zoning districts, the C-3 zoning district was used in the
table below as a benchmark to evaluate the proposed developmcnt standards against the LDC's
standards. As shown in the table, the CPUD would provide appropriate setbacks from its
Proposed Development Standards fot. Principal Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC
/--
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875. Tamiami Crossing
75 feet
75 feet
25 feet
25 feet
15 reet
25 reet
25 feet
50% of building heigbt; but ":25 feet
"
50% of building height; but ":15 feet
50% of building height; but ,,:25 feet
"
10 feet
15 feet
10 feet
25 feet
11le greater of 10 feet of
the sum of building
hei hts
Zoned 60 feet; actual 65
feet
1,000 sq. ft. per
subdivided lot
235,000 sq. ft.
none
"
"
25 feet
none
50 reet
700 sq. ft. (ground floor)
none
9
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 25 of 94
abutting roadways and uses. (It should be noted that although setbacks from Artesa Pointe are
proposed to be only 15 feet, Environmental Services staff has verified that that project's platted
preserve arca commences ten feet from its boundary line. Thus, the 25- foot setback requirement
of the LDC for principle structures from pfeserve areas would be respected.) Maximum zoned
building height for both retail and office buildings would be 50 feet, with the actual building
height not to exceed 65 feet. Overall, the proposed development standards for principal
structures meet the standards of the C-3 zoning district.
Along the project's Collier Boulevard frontage, the applicant has provided a commitment (in
Exhibit F, section G.2.) stating that the Type D buffer shown would be supplemented to the
extent depicted in Exhibit G, entitled "Enhanced Landscape Buffer." The purpose of this
enhanced buffer is to mitigate the impact of the applicant's requested deviation (No.3), which
will be discussed in detail in the "Dcviations" portion of this report, below. As shown in this
exhibit, the Type D buffer has been augmcnted to provide one additional canopy tree every 30
feet, with all canopy trccs in the buffer measuring six feet taller than normally required at the
time of planting. In addition, the sabal ("cabbage") palms in the buffer are pfoposed to be
staggcred from 12 to 18 feet in height rather than simply ten feet in height as required by the
LDC. Finally, a foyal palm will be installed on eithef side of the cabbage palm clusters to
furthef enhance the buffer. Overall, 7.36 acres, or 30 percent of the site's area, would be
retained as open space-the minimum required by LDC Section 4.07.02.G., Design Standards
---of which 15 percent would be held in the aforementioncd 3.43-acre preserve.
As illustrated in the following table, accessory struclw.es would require front yards to be a
minimum of zero feet. Staff does not support this setback since "accessory structures" per the
LDC include parking structures, which would not be appropriately located abutting internal
roadways. Therefore, a condition of approval has been included requiring setbacks to be
Proposed Development StandaJ'ds for Accessory Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC
JO feet
10 feet
parking structures
35 feet;
utility buildings 10
fcct;
all others: S,P.S.
10 feet
if parking structure,
1 foot per every foot
of building height;
all others: 10 feet
none
10 feet
10 feet
25 feet
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, Tamiami Crossing
10
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 26 of 94
consistent with those of the principal stlUcture, as nonnaUy required by the LDC. Rear and side
yafds would be set back a minimum of ten feet, with ten-foot setbacks from preserve areas.
Distances between accessory structures would be at least ten feet; and the structures maximum
permitted height would be 25 feet. These standards, as shown in the table below, are either
equal to or slightly less than those required by the C-3 zoning district.
Deviations: In Exhibit E of the CPUD document, the petitioner seeks approval of three
deviations from the design standards of the Land Development Code and has pfovided a
justification to support these deviations. Staff has analyzed these deviations and provides the
following analyses and reconunendations:
Deviation 1 seeks relief from the requirement of LDC Section 4.06.02, which requires a
landscape buffer between platted commercial building lots. According to the petitioner, the
purpose of this deviation is to provide zero-foot setbacks between buildings due to anticipated
multiple land ownership of the large anchor building shown on the Master Plan. This deviation
would, incidentally, also allow him to forego the installation of intemal landscape buffers
between the two separately platted tracts shown (or an even greater number of tracts if the site is
ultimately re-platted). The petitioner claims that this deviation is justified due to a recent trend in
commercial development.
Staff is strongly opposed to any such a deviation, as it amounts to an unconditional waiver of the
LDC's landscape requirement for Type A buffers between scparately platted tracts without any
mitigation for impacts. The outcome of this waiver would be the creation of a grossly
overdeveloped site without clearly defIDed uses, and one with an unusually harsh microclimate
due to the lack of vegetation to shade each of the individual parcels from adverse ambient
temperatures. Moreover, LDC Section 4.06.01 spccifically states that the pw-pose and intent of
the landscape code is to:
. Improve the aesthetic appearance of conmlercial, industrial, and residential
developments through the rcquircment of minimum landscaping in ways that
harmonize the natural and built enviromnent;
. Provide physical and psychological benefits to persons through landscaping by
reducing noise and glare;
. Screen and buffer the harsher visual aspects of urban development;
. Improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat, and
chemical pollution through the presen'ation of canopy trces and the creation of
shade and microclimate;
. Rcduce heat gain in or on buildings or paved areas through the filtering capacity
of trees and vegetation; and
. promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents of Collier County by
establishing minimum uniform standards for the installation and maintenance of
landscaping.
r-
Obviously none of these objectives would be achieved by honoring the applicant's
requested deviation. Furthermore, tins situation would only be further exacerbated by the
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, Tamiami Crossing
II
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 27 of 94
applicant's third requested deviation (see No.3, below), which staff only supports
contingent upon denial of Deviation No. I.
Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.C.1, which pennits a maximum of two 80-
square foot on-premises pole or monument signs per public strect frontage, as the petitioner
would like to permit an on-prelnises pole or monument signs at each of the site's three accesses
along its US 41 frontage, having a total maximum cumulative area of 160 square feet. The
applicant's justification for the deviation is the safe and efficient travel of the development's
users.
LDC Section 5.06.04.C. states that shopping centers having frontage of 150 feet or more on a
public street shall be permitted one pole or ground sign mcasuring 80 square feet, if located along
an arterial roadway; and that an additional sign may be pcrmittcd, provided there is a minimum
1000-foot separation between the two signs. The provision further states that, "[i]n no case shall
the number of pole or ground signs excced two per street froutage."
Although the subject property's entire US 41 frontage measures approximately 2,200 feet, which
would result in the three signs proposed by the applicant only being 739 feet and 860 feet apart
instead of 1,000 feet (see the monument signs locations on the Conceptual Master Plan on page
three), staff supports the proposed deviation since the proposed cumulative area of the signage
would be the equivalent oftwo signs at 80 square feet each, which is the maximum signage m-ea
permitted by the LDC.
Deviation 3 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.E., which pennits no more than 50 percent of the
required parking for interior lots to be located between the primary fa<(ade of a building and its
abutting street. The applicant would like to permit 100 pcrcent of the requb:ed parking between
its primary fa<(ade and the Collier Boulevard frontage, justifying doing so because of the irrcgular
shape of a parcel. Architectural Review staff would support this deviation with the applicant's
enhanced landscape buffer commitment in Exhibit G, which would serve to moderate the
impact of the resultant expanse of parking by adequately partitioning its view from Collier
Boulevard. However, as noted above, staff only supports this deviation in conjunction with the
denial of Deviation No.1, since only interior landscaping bctween platted parcels in addition to
the enhanced landscapc buffcr would sufficiently moderate the impact oflocating the site's entire
parking needs along its Collier Bou1cvmu frontage.
Deviation 4 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.E, which requires a masonry wall between
commercial and residential properties. Because the RSF-3 site is actually occupied by an
Embarq station that is sUlrounded by other commercial uses; and the residential uses of Artesa
Pointe would be separated from the CPUD by a collector roadway and the subject site's
preserve/water management area, it is staffs opinion that the Type B landscape buffers alone
provided at these interfaces would be sufficient to mitigate any conflicts between (he uscs. As
such, staff supports this waiver.
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, Tamiami Crossing
12
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 28 of 94
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (RAe):
This petition was heard by the EAC on March 5, 2008, and received a unanimous vote(8-0)
to be forwarded to the CCPC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following
condition:
. Stormwater management control elevation discharge shall be 4.9 feet NGVD 01'
above.
Staff has incorporated this condition into its stipulations for approval, on the following
page.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NlM):
(Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator)
The applicant duly noticed and held the NIM for Tamiami Crossing, Artesa Pointe (PUDA-
2007-AR-11734), and the associated Comprehensive Planning Amendment (CPSS-06-l) as
companion items on September 26, 2007, at Manatee Elementary School. Approximately 70
people attended, some of whom identified themselves as residents of Eagle Crcck. Also present
were County staff, County Commissioner Donna Fiala, Planning Commissioner Bob Murray,
the applicant and his agents.
Most of the questions posed by attendees focused on traffic impacts and the County's
TranspOltation Divisions' plans for area road improvements. The applicant told the audience
that a signal on US-41 between the site and one quarter mile from the Habitat for Humanity
project would be sought, with an alternate location further cast, subject to the approval of the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The applicant's team stated that there were
plans for access points on CR 951 and US 41, and two interconnection points with AItesa
Pointe PUD.
Attendees were interested in finding out if there was a big box retailer like Super-Target
proposed. Eric Strickland of Kite Development responded that a box retail or grocery store was
proposed, and that his firm is indeed a Target developer. He also stated that the project's
projected opening was late 2008. The agent addcd that the proposed zoning was primarily for C-
4 (General Commercial) uses, and that a garden center was also a potential end-user. A
commitment was made by members of the applicant's team that there would be no tattoo parlor.
The Developer's agent, Richard Yovanovich, stated that the applicant's team was willing to
speak with any Homcowners' Associations that wcre interested in meeting with them. He also
told the group that these items would not be on the summary agenda if there were any
objections from the neighbors since attendees felt that the Wal-Mart in AItesa Pointe had been
approved without adequate notification of the public hearing date. Mr. Y ovanovich then advised
the audience to file any objections to the proposals with the County's Planning staff.
,~.,
The NIM officially ended at approximately 6:30 p.m. Transportation Planning Director Nick
Casalanguida said he and the applicant's team would remain after the meeting to discuss
PUDZ-2006-AR-J0875, Tamiami Crossing
13
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 29 of 94
developer contribution agreements and improvements of the Collier Boulevard/US-41
intersection.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) fOlward Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875 to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following
stipulations:
I. The applicant shall be permitted one sign at each of the US 4 I access points; however, the
cumulative area of all the pole or monument signage along this frontage shall not exceed 160
square feet.
. 2. The site shall be separated from the residential uscs along its Artesa Pointe boundary by a
minimum Type B buffer, and from the parcel zoned RSF-3 along its western boundary by a
minimum Type B buffer. No fence or wall shall be required.
'3. Setbacks for all accessory structures shall be the same as those of the principal structure.
. 4. An "Environmental" subsection in the "Development Commitments" section of the CPUD
documcnt shall be included to state, "An analysis demonstrating that post development
pollutant loading will be less than or equal to predevelopment loading in general accordance
with the Harvey Harper methodology, shall be completed and submitted for review and
approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval."
. 5. No tattooing establishments shall be permitted within the CPUD.
6. Stormwater management control elevation discharge shall be 4.9 fcet NGVD or above.
Staff also recommends approval of the applicant's requested deviations except for Deviation #1,
which requests a waiver of the LDC's requirement for Type A buffers between scparately platted
tracts without any mitigation for its impacts. However, should the Board choose to recommend
approval of Deviation #1, staff recommends that Deviation #3 he dcnicd, which staff supports
only subject to the denial of Deviation #1.
\
PUDZ-2006-AR-J0875. Tamiami Crossing
14
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 30 of 94
PREPARED BY:
~~ i1-Q~
J -DAVID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
J-.) J-g'/ 0 g
I DATE
REVIEWED BY:
---rY\~'_ O/r) {J-r(.Ult-vt -t2tI-,d--,~
MARlO M. STUDENT-STIRLING - - ()
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
3h~168
I DATE
~ ~ 3N~t
V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ' , DATE
NT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~tm.~
Au SAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
\.3/7/0$1
DATE
APPROVED BY:
Tentatively scheduled for the March 20, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
,-
Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings
B. PUD Findings
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875. Tamiami Crossing
14
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 31 of 94
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION PUDA-2006-AR-I0875
Tamiami Crossing CPUD
Chapter lO.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall
show that the Planning Commission has studicd and considered the proposed change in relation
10 the following, where applicable:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Findings: Page three of the staff report expalins how this petition is consistent with the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject
property is designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, (Activity Center #18) Urban
Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and Hendcrson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Future Land
Use Element and on the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. This area includes 18.15010
acres of A, C-2, and C-4 zoned properties. A petition for 7.3"' acres, currently A-zoned and
designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, has been submitted to the Comprchensive
Planning Department for a Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to incorporate
this acreage into Activity Centcr #18. This CPUD rezone is therefore contingcnt upon
approval of that GMP amendment; and if approved, tile entire site would be designated
Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict except for 0.88 acres, which would remain under the
Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict designation.
2, The existing land use pattern;
Findings: The subject site is generally bordered by commercial zoning districts to the
north and west and by the Artesa Pointe PUD the south, which permits commercial uses
consistent with the C-I through C-5 zoning districts. Therefore, the proposed CPUD
would be compatible with the existing land usc pattern.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
Findings: As noted above, the subject site is already surrounded by property with similar
land uses. For this reason, the proposed rezone would not create an isolated district.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property pl'Oposed for change.
Findings: The location map on page two of the staff report highlights the boundary of the
subject pareel. The CPUD is indeed irregular in relation to the majority of parcels in the
County, which are typically rectangular. However, the subject property was created by
the assemblage of available parcels in the area, which resulted in a rather unusual shape
for the proposed PUD. Nevertheless, the district boundaries are not illogically drawn.
Page I of 4
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 32 of 94
5. Whether changcd or changing conditions makc the passage of thc proposcd
amendmcnt neccssary.
Findings: The proposed PUDA is not obligatory at this location. However, the request is
reasonable because the preponderance of the property is designated Mixed Use Activity
Center Subdistrict, which is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in
locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated to avoid strip and disorganized
patterns of commercial development and to create focal points within the community,
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Findings: The proposed development would not adversely affect the living conditions in
the neighborhood as appropriate buffering has been provided adjacent to residential uses
in the Altesa Pointe PUD, Furthermore, the proposed use for the property would be
similar to that already approved for the Altesa Pointe PUD.
7. Whether the proposed change will create Of excessively increase traffic congestion
or cl'eate types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uscs, because
of peak volumcs or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
Findings: The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the proposcd PUD and has
recommended approval of the petition as the project is not projected to lower the Lcvel of
Service (LOS) below thc adopted LOS for the area.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Findings: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems, as
the existing water management system is designed to prevent drainage problems on the
site. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place to ensure review for
adequate drainage on the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD.
9, Whether the proposed change will sefiously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
Findings: The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent propelties in
terms of reducing light and air. Exhibit B provides the building height and setback
standards which should maintain the light and air circulation on adjacent properties.
10.
Whether the pl'oposcd change will adversely affect propefty values in the adjaccnt
area;
~.
Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be
internal or extemal to the subject property, Property valuation is affected by a host of
factors including zoning; however zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since
value determination is driven by the market. There is no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
Page 2 of4
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 33 of 94
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Findings: The adjacent propelties allow similar uses. Therefofe, the proposal would not
be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
Findings: As stated, the proposed amendment complies with the Mixed Use Activity
Center Subdistrict, (Activity Center #18) Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and the
Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict designation of the GMP in which it is located.
Furthermore, land use applications are subject to a public hearing process to insure that
they do not constitute a grant of special privileges or are inconsistent with other
pl'Operties in the vicinity in which they are situated.
13. Whethef there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning;
Findings: There are no substantial reasons why the property could not be used in
accordance with existing zoning. However, the proposed use would fulfill the objectives
of the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the nceds of the neighborhood or
the County;
Findings: The proposed amendment conforms to the goals and objectives of the GMP
and is compatible with the surrounding propcrty.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting sueh use.
Findings: There arc many sites that are already zoned to accommodate the proposed
development; however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the
appropriateness of a rczoning decision. The proposed crUD was reviewed and deemed
compliant with the GMP and the LDC, as was the Aliesa Pointe PUDA proposed in
conjunction with this 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
uuder the proposed zoning classification.
Findings: Any development would require some site alteration and the subject site will
have to be cleared to executc the proposed CPUD.
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
Poge 3 of4
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 34 of 94
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
Findings: The proposed CPUD will have to meet the crjtcria set forth in Section 6.02.00,
Adequate Public Facilities and conform to the goals and objectives of the GMP. This
petition has been reviewed by county staff, who has concluded that the proposed
development is consistent with the elements of the GMP.
,-
Page 4 of4
.,~,--,,-
EXHIBIT n
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 35 of 94
FINDINGS FOR PUD
PETITION PUDA-2006-AR-I0875
Tamiami Crossing CPUD
Section 10.02.13 of the Collief County Land Development Code requifes the Planning
Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following
criteria:
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattel'n of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and othel' utilities.
Findings: If the companion small scale amendment upon which this application is
contingent is approved, the entire site would be designated Mixed Use Activity Center
Subdistrict (except for 0.88 acres, which would remain under the Hcnderson Creek Mixed
Use Subdistrict designation). The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict is designed to
concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can
readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial
development, and to create focai points within the community. The proposed CPUD fulfills
the objectives of this designation and will have to be in accordance with all applicable
sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) at the time of issuance of any development
order.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those pfoposed, particularly as
they may relate to armngements 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 publie expense.
Findings: Evidence of unified control was providcd with the application. All arrangements
for the development of the CPUD are contained within the PUD documents.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Findings: The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
which designates the subject propelty as both the Mixed Use Activity Centcr Subdistrict
and the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict. The subject petition has been found
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP, as explained on page three of
the staff repOlt.
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.
Findings: Scction 4.07.02 of thc LDC has spccific dcvclopmcnt rcquircments for PUD
districts to insure that they are compatible with established or planned uses of the
surrounding neighborhoods. As noted in the staff repOlt, the subject parcel is located in
Page I 012
EXHIBIT B
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 36 of 94
both the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict and the Henderson Creek Mixed Use
Subdistrict, a latter which permits a maximum commercial gross floor area of 325,000
square feet. As the Artesa Pointe PUD has already been approved fOf 325,000 square feet
of commercial uses, the subject 0.88 acres would not be eligible for any further commercial
development. Instead, this acreage would only be limited to parking area, which would be
compatible with the surrounding uses.
The applicant seeks relieffrom the requirement ofLDC Section 4.06.02, which requires
a landscape buffer between platted commercial building lots. Staff is strongly opposed to any
such a deviation, as it amounts to an unconditional waiver ofthe LDC's landscape
requirements without any sort of mitigation for its impacts. The result of such a waiver of the
normally required Type A buffers between separately platted tracts would merely create the
appearance of a grossly overdcveloped site, as well as an extremely hostile microclimate, due
to the lack of vegetation to define each of the individual uscs and to cool ambient temperatures.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Findings: Approximately 7.36 acres, or 30 percent of the site's area would be retained as
open space-the minimum required by the LDC-ofwhich 15 percent would be held in a
3.43-acre preserve.
6. The timing or sequence of development fOf the put'pose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Findings: No capacity issues are known at this time and the petition has been reviewed by
County Transportation staff who has detClmined that no Level of Service (LOS) standards
will be adversely atIected. Policy 2.3 of the GMP requires the certification of public
facility availability prior to the issuance ofa final local development order. Because of this
provision, the development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency
management regulation.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding al'cas to accommodate
expansion.
Findings: The utility and roadway infrastructure has, or will have, adequate capacity to
serve the proposed CPUD and the sUlTotmding development at the time of its build-out.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular casc, based on determination that such modifications are justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
,...-.
Findings: Staff has reviewed this petition and found it to be consistent with the Futme
Land Use Element (FLUE) and the other elements of the GMP. The proposcd
development standards are comparable to the development standards of the C-3 zoning
district. Additionally, the proposed buffers and deviations recommended by staff will
ensure compatibility with the adjacent properties.
Page 2 of2
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 37 of 94
ORDINANCE NO. 08-_
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 INCLUDES TIIE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY. FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING TIm ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRffiED REAL PROPERTY FROM A
(AGRICULTURAL), C-2 (COMMERCIAL
CONVENIENCE), C.4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING DISTRICTS AND ARTESA POINT PUD TO A
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
"CPUD" KNOWN AS THE TAMIAMI CROSSING
CPUD LOCATED. IN SECTlON 3, TOWNSHlP 5]
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY.
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 24.45;t ACRES; AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, KRG 951 and 41, LLC, represented by Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, petitioned the:: Board of County Commil'sioners 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 c]as~ifjcatjon of the herein described real property located in Section
3, Township 51 South, Range 26 Ea.<:t, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the A
(Agricultural), C-2 (Commercial Convenience) and C-4 (General Commercial) and
Artesa Paiute PUD Zoning Districts to a Commerciill Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) Zoning Di.strict for a project to be known as the Tamiami Crossing Commercial
Planned Unit Development (CPUD) in accordance with Exhibits A through G, attached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps,
as described in Ordinance Number 2004.4], as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
~EL'TlON TWO:
This Ordinance shan become effective upon filing with tbe Florida Department of
State.
Page lof2
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 38 of 94
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
day of
.2008.
A TrEST
Dwight E. Brock. Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLlER COUNTY, FLORIDA
. Deputy Clerk
By:
TOM HENNJNG, CHAIRMAN
By:
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
~
;{f\ Marjorie M. Student-Stirling
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit A - Permitted Use~
Exhibit B - Development Standards
Exhibit C - Master Plan
Exhibit D - Legal Description
Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviation from LDC
Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments
r--
I
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 39 of 94
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
(i)
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
PUDZ-2006-AR-J 0875 REV: 3
TAMJAMI CROSSING CPUD
Project: 2005060079
Date: 10/31/07 DUE: 12/4/07
NAME OF APPLICANT (S) KRG 951 AND 41. LLC
ADDRESS 30 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET. SUITE 1100 CITY INDIANAPOLIS STATE ill ZIP 46204-3565
TELEPHONE # 317-809-6960 CELL # FAX # 317-577-5605
E-MAIL ADDRESS:ESTRICKLAND@KITEREALTY.COM
NAME OF AGENT D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP - Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
ADDRESS 3800 VIA DEL REY CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34134
TELEPHONE # 239-947-1144 CELL # FAX # 239-947-0375
E-MAIL ADDRESS:WARNOLD@GRADYMINOR.COM
NAME OF AGENT RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH. ESQ. - GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, PA
ADDRESS 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 300 CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34103
TELEPHONE # 239-435-3535 CELL # FAX # 239-435-1218
E-MAIL ADDRESS:RYOVANOVICH@GCJLAW.COM
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
KITE95 I PLN CPUD RC-Lone Petil iOIJ..doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 40 of 94
Complete the following for all Assoclation{s) affiliated with this petition. Provide additional
sheets if necessary.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION: NIA
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 MASTER ASSOCIATION:
_MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
~
I
KITE951 PLN CPUD Rezone Petition,doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 41 of 94
...--1
o. "", '.. ,",'''''.. ". : ".", _.. ~ .'f;R,:_.'. ,,"~""':';;"-."~::"""~"'. 'l..: ..'" '~""",,.:-"""'-'_
-':-'.; , .."'- .'",.,,~' '_..:' -" ., ,- . ;. "i'_':-rl.,. i...-"~,s._~"",, _':"'~,,;,,' "^>'~, .'
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. (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
NOT APPLICABLE
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
Percentage of Ownership
KRG 951 & 41, LLC
30 South Meridian Street. Suite 1100
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3565
100%
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
Percentage 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
Percentage of Ownership
,-
KIfE95 I PLN crUD Rezone PetitiQll.dQc
e.
Agenda Item No. 8B
If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or i~\li~il~g a
Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contracfii\1rci,~sers
below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners.
Name and Address
Percentage 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 ~ 2003. 2004. 2005 and 2007 I_ed 0 Term of
18a&8 _YI'S.tmes.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option:
Date option terminates:
Anticipated closing date:
, or
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.
Detailed leQal description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach
on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal
description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent
survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do 50 at the
~----"re-application meeting.
NOTE: 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.
KJJ'S95 I PLN CPUD Rezone Pclilion.doc
SectionlTownshiplRange S31T51 SIR26E
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property 1.0. #: 00726240005, 00726080003, 00726160004,
00726120002,00726320006,00726280007. 00726721809, 00725841007,00726724204and00726724301
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 43 of 94
Metes & Bounds Description:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "0.S.-3" OF TRAIL RIDGE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 71 THROUGH 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA;
THENCE RUN NORTH 89055'57" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT "0.S.-3", FOR A DISTANCE OF
683.32 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3620 AT PAGES
2872 THROUGH 2876 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH
00004'03" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS, FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
NORTH LINE OF TRACT "C" OF SAID TRAIL RIDGE; THENCE RUN NORTH 89055'57" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 196.99 FEET TO THE NORTHERLYMOSTWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT "C";
THENCE RUN SOUTH 02030'29" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "C", FOR A DISTANCE OF
1 00.09 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 90"00'00" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "C", FOR A
DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD #951 (RIGHT-OF-
WAY VARIES); THENCE RUN NORTH 02030'29" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 140.20 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 04012'04" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FORA
DISTANCE OF 640.85 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89042'14" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.66 FEET; THENCE
RUN NORTH 15042'49" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.41 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 35039'44" EAST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD No. 90
(TAMIAMI TRAIL 200.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE RUN SOUTH 54"20'16" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,927.32 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35039'44" WEST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRAIL RIDGE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 71 THROUGH 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 54020'16" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRAIL
RIDGE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 855.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN
DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 25.451 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Size of property: ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres 25.45:1:
Addresslaenerallocation of subject property: No site address, property is located on the south side of U.S.
41 approximately 300 feet east of Collier Boulevard.
PUD District (LDC 2.03.06):
o Residential 0 Community Facilities
[ZJ Commercial 0 Industrial
f>::':;i;,;:,"':'-;~:;~;:;;;~Ii;;f~;r':::;-~~~~;1iiii;'j;p;J~!;?i;tsiT;?iPf\!ifijii;Atvtrl,;ANP,U.$~': . . V::".;':;~:~;~~i,~"ti~J~1'~;~~.0;*l1
Zoning
Land use
N C-2/ST. C-3/ST. C-4o C-5o A
SPUD
EA
W PUDo CA. RSF-3
Commercial, CVS Pharmacv and undeyeloped land
Commercial and Residential. Artesa Pointe PUD
Undeveloped State owned land
Residential - Eaqle Creek PUD, County Utilities, Convenience Store
KJTE951 PLN CPUD Rezone Petitic)I}.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject p~ertil2jf!io,
give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space Is lnadeqa~te, ~'tfach
on separate page). NO
SectlonlTownshiplRange _/ /
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book_ Page #: Property 1.0. #:
Metes & Bounds Description:
This application is requesting a rezone from the A. Rural Aqriculture, C-2, C.4, and PUD IArtesia Pointe)
zoning district(s) to the CPUD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: Vacant, Undeveloped
Proposed Use (or fange of uses) of the property: Commercial, Retail
Original PUD Name: Ordinance No.:
Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staffs analysis and
_ recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to
lie Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted
below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the
criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request.
PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.Bl
The Tamiami Crossing Commercial Planned Unit Development proposes a maximum of 235,000 square feet
of general commercial and retail land uses on 24.57:1: acres. The property is located on Tamiami Trail (U.S.
41) and Collier Boulevard (S.R. 951). Access to the project is from Tamiami Trail and Coliier Boulevard.
The project is located within the Mixed Use Activity Center Sub District designation (Activity Center #18) as
identified on the Future Land Use Map, as described in the Activity Center Sub-District of the urban -
Commercial District in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).. The proposed commercial uses are consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Eiement. The
conceptual master plan prepared for the property identifies the proposed building areas In support of the light
industrial land uses. The conceptual master plan also identifies proposed points of ingress/egress to the site,
landscape buffers and areas proposed for storm water retention. The proposed deveiopment is compatible
with surrounding commercial development which also lies within the Urban Residential Sub-district, and
adjacent Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict.
Natural ground elevation Is approximately 9':!: NGVD. The entire site is located within FEMA Flood Zone AE5,
as identified on the FIRM Map, Community No. 120067, Panel no 605G and 615G, November 17, 2005.
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.
KITE95 I PLN CPUD Rezone Pelitioll.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
The subject property is located in the Mixed Use Activity Center Sub District desig/Mjol{ll~ity
Center #18) as identified on the Future Land Use Map, which permits land uses such-~g~l\\li\'Ml:lal.
The site is presently undeveloped, and all contiguous properties are being developed with commercial
and residential land uses.
The site has access to Collier Boulevard and U.S, 41. Urban services are presently available to the
property and sufficient capacity exists to serve the proposed land uses.
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. Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney.
The documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. A portion of the
subject property is under contract for purchase and appropriate disclosures are provided in the
application.
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth
management plan.
The Statement of Compliance iocated in the CPUD document discusses consistency with the Collier
County Growth Management Plan. The proposed commercial land uses are consistent with the intent
and purpose of the Future Land Use Element and Coastal Management Element of the Growth
Management Plan.
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 '..
fequirements.
The proposed commercial development is compatible with the surrounding land use pattern. The
Internal arrangement of the proposed development, access points and project buffers are consistent
with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code and sound planning principles with
respect to urban deveiopment within Mixed Use Activity Centers.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The proposed commercial development will provide open space in accordance with the LDC. Open
spaces will be provided for this project and will include areas for landscape buffers, building
landscaping, preserves, and water management areas.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The proposed timing of development wili be required to be consistent with the County's concurrency
management system in effect at the time development order approvals are granted.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
At the filing date of the zoning application there are no pians to expand the boundaries of the proposed
CPUD. Adjacent properties are presently under development The application includes all properties
under the unified control of the applicant and current property owners.
KITn951 PLN CPUD Rezone Pctilion.doc
8.
Agenda Item No. 8B
Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such reguml'lOl.!% ~2fhe
particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as me"JtTng pu1j!ic
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The proposed CPUD includes development standards and conditions which are consistent with other
similar types of commercial planned developments. The CPUD document and master plan include
buffers and development standards which also fulfill objectives to promote economic development in
Collier County.
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many
communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners
association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the
request is affected by existing deed restrictions.
Previous land use petitions on the subiect property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been
held on this property within the last year? 0 Yes I:8J No
If so, what was the nature of that hearing?
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made
and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered
"closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supplv
necessary information to continue processinq or otherwise activelv pursue the rezoninq for a period
of six (6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an
application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed"
'- 'lay be re-opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of
II d determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code.
II (LOC Section 10.03.05.Q.}
~.
KITE9.S 1 PLN CPUD Rezone Petition.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW
W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
#OF
REQUIREMENTS COPIES
REQUIRED
NOT
REQUIRED
...~ -"yr;'lf"".
1 Additional set if located In the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle
Redevelopment Area)
Co ies of detailed descri tion of wh amendment is necessar 24
Completed Application (download from webslte for current 24
form)
Pre-a licatlon meetln notes 24
PUD Document & Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 }1" 24
x 11" co
Revised Conce tual Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 JI," x 11" co 24
Original PUD document and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF 24
AMENDING THE PUD
Revised PUD document with chan es crossed thru & underlined 24
Revised PUD document w/amended Title page w/ord #'5, LDC 24
10.02.13A2
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
Deeds/legal's & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is
amended)
list identifying Owner & all parties of corporation
Owner / Affidavit signed & notarized
Covenant of Unified Control
Completed Addressing checklist
2
X
~-19-C-".'--"'~'._~'~---'--'--"--" "'~'-'---'<m
"~''''''.." -'-".". ,..., .- ,-"
t_~i-;"r.~~;"\lI" ,..".> ,_", ~ ,"-"~:::.. _", '<~ ,
2
2
2
2
X
X
X
X
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital/electronic
co y of EIS or exem tlon .ustification 4
Historical Surveyor waiver request 4
Utility Provisions Statement w/sketches 4
Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4
Survey, signed & sealed 4
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver 7
Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min
scaled 1 "=400' 5
Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans
(CDRom or Diskette)
If loca_ted in RFMU (Rural Frinqe Mixed Usg) Receivinq land Areas
Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavera. State of Florida
Division of Forestry t r~;;;r690- 3 00 for inforftion regarding
"Wildfire Mitigation ~tion: ". LD~e JOn 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c.
~----h------------- 1____ ___,~T;; - oj\)\ -S6 lb'f
App/icant/Ag , Signature Date '
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KlTE95 1 PLN CPUD Rezone Pctieioll.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 48 of 94
ORDINANCE NO. 08"_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORlDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS
AMENDED, nrn COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORlDA BY AMENDING THE
AppROpRlATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRlBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A
(AGRlCULTURAL), C-2 (COMMERCIAL
CONVENIENCE), C.4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING D1STRlCTS AND ARTESA POINT PUD TO A
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
"CpUD" KNOWN AS nrn TAMIAMI CROSSING
CPUD LOCATED, IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORlDA, CONSISTING OF 24.45:1: ACRES; AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DAlE.
WHEREAS, KRG 951 and 41, LLC, repre,ented by Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the
zoning classification of the herein descIibcd 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 desCl'ibcd real pl'Opcrty located in Section
3, TowlLShip 51 South, Range 26 East, CoUier County, Florida, is changed from the A
(Agricultural), C.2 (Commercial Conveuience) and C-4 (General Commercial) and
Artesa Pointe I)UD Zoning Districts to a Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Tamiami Crossing Commercial
Platmed Unit Development (CPUD) in accordance with Exhibits A ~rrough G, attached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atla... map or maps,
as described in Ordinance Number 2004M41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shaH become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of
~.
State.
Page 1 of2
(I
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 49 of 94
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. this
day of
,2008.
ATTEST
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORJDA
By:
By:
TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Ma~orie M. Student-Stirling
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit A - Permitted Uses
Exhibit B - Devetopment Standards
Exltibit C - Master Plan
Exhibit D - Legai Description
Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviation from LD C
Exhibit F - List of Developer Conullitmcnts
ExlJibit G - Landscape Buffer
Page 2 of2
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 50 of 94
PERMITTED USES
TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD
I. PERMITTED USES
The 25.45:l: acre commercial project shall not be developed with more than a maximum of
235,000 square feet of gross commercial floor area. No building or structure, or part thefeof,
shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in pmt, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Amusement and recreation services: GJ'oups 7911 and 7991.
2. Apparel and accessory stores: Groups 5611 - 5699.
3. Attorney Offices and Legal Services: Group 8111.
4. Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations: Groups 5511 (new and
used motor vehicle dealers), 5531 (auto and home supply store), 5541
(gasoline service stations [automobile service stations only, with services and
repairs as descfibed in the Land Development Code, convenience food and
bcveragc storcs, and cxcluding truck stops - rctaiL Dicscl punlpS shall only be
provided fOf automobiles and tmcks of one ton or less capacity]) and 5571
(motorcycle dealers).
5. Automotive Repair, Scrvices and Parking: Groups 7514, 7515, 7542 (only for
automobiles and hucks/buses of one ton capacity or less).
6. Boat Dealers: Group 5551.
7. Bowling Center: Group 7933
8. Building Materials: Groups 5211-5231
9. Business Services: Groups 7311,7313,7322 - 7338, 7361, 7371 -7384.
10. Depository Institutions and Non-depository Credit Institutions: Groups 6021-
6163
II. Drinking Establishments and Places: Group 5813 (cocktail lounges permitted
only in conjunction with a restaurant).
r
12.
Eating Establislunents and Places: GJ-oup 5812.
13.
Educational Services: Groups 8211 - 8249 and 8299 (no exterior instmction
of motorized equipment).
7rrrnl Y2--- 5(1(08
Margie's 4_28_08 Tamiami PlJD- 4-28-08 MMSS
Page 1 of! 0
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 51 of 94
14. Food Stores: Groups 5411, 5421, 5431 (except roadside sales) and 5499.
15. Garden Supply Group: 5261
16. General Merchandise Stores: Groups 5311 - 5399 (including warehouse clubs
and discount retail superstores).
17. Hardware Stores: Group 5251.
18. Health Services: Groups 8011 - 8099.
19. Profcssional Officcs: Groups 6712 - 6799.
20. Home Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stofes: Gmups 5712 - 5736.
21. Hotels and Motels: Group 7011.
22. Insurance Agencies, Brokers and Carricrs: Groups 6311 - 6399 and 6411.
23. Managcmcnt Serviccs: Groups 8711 - 8748.
24. Membership Organizations: Groups 8611, 8621, 8641 and 8661.
25. Miscellaneous Repair Services: Groups 7622 - 7631.
26. Miscellaneous Retail Services: Groups 5912, 5932 (antiques only), 5941 -
5949 and 5992 - 5999 (except auction rooms, monument and tombstone
sales).
27. Movie Picture Theaters: Group 7832.
28. Museums and Art Galleries: Group 8412.
29. Personal Services: Group 7212 (dry-cleaning and laundry pickup stations
only), 7215, 7217, 7219 - 7291, and 7299 (car title/tag service and tanning
salons only).
30. Public Administration: Groups 9111 - 9661.
31. Real Estate agents and managers (Groups 6512 - 6514, 6519, 6531 - 6552,
excluding mobile home brokerage on-site).
32. Security and Commodity Brokers, Dcalers, Exchanges and Services: Groups
6211 - 6289.
33. Social Services: Groups 8322 (only adult day care centers, counseling centers,
and senior citizens associations), and 8351.
34.
Travel Agencies: Group 4724.
il'rr)l;J4- S-/ I /08
Margie's 4_28_0& Tnmiami PUD- 4*28.08 MMSS
Page 2 of 10
.-
35.
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 52 of 94
Veterinarian's Office: Group 0742 (for household pets only and without
overnight boarding or outdoor kennels).
36. Videotape Rental: Group 7841.
37. Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in
nature with the foregoing uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
B. Accessory Uscs/Structures:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the pennitted principal
uses and structurcs, including, but not limited to:
I. Uscs and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted principal
uses.
2. Cocktailloungcs (Group 5813), only in conjunction with eating places.
3. Caretakef's residence.
4. Sidewalk sales: outdoor seasonal sales shall be permitted (except roadside
sales).
II, PROHIBITED USES
The following uses shall bc prohibited:
Tattooing establishments (Group 7299).
III. PRESERVE TRACT USES
No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used in whole or
in part, for other than the following, subject to the issuance of regional, state and federal permits,
when requircd:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Boardwalks, nature trails and shelters.
2. Water management structures.
3. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use that is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning
Appeals, or designee, determines to be compatible in the Preserve Tracts.
r--
7fn11,oJ2- S)/ /08
Margie's 4_28_08 Tamiami PUD - 4-28-08 MMSS
Page3 of 10
EXHIBIT B
FOR
TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 53 of 94
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the CPUD. Standards not
specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in the applicable sections of the Land
Development Code (LDC) in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP)
or subdivision piaL
TABLE I
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT
PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A
MINIMUMI,OT WIDTH 75 Ft. N/A
MINIMUM YARDS (External)
From Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) 1 foot of setback for evety 2 SPS
feet of zoned building height,
but not less than 25 fcct.
From Co11ier Blvd. I foot of setback for evelY 2 SPS
feet of zoned huilding height,
... but not less than 25 feet.
~-'._.~ - --~-"---'--' .. -.
From Pasedo Dr 25 Ft. SPS
From Artesa Pointe PUD Boundarv 15 Ft. SPS
From Western Project Boundary 25 FL SPS
From Eastcrn Project Boundary 25 Ft. SPS
MINIMUM YARDS (Internal)
Internal Drivcs/ROW 10 FL SPS
Rcar 15 Ft. SPS .-
Side 10Ft. SPS
--~-
Preserve 25 Ft. SPS
. -..-
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 10 Ft. or sum of 10Ft.
STRUCTURES building heights *
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Retail/Office Buildings Zoned 60 Ft. 25 Ft.
actual 65 Ft.
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 Sq. Ft. ** N/A
MAX. GROSS LEASABLE AREA 235,000 Sq. Fl. N/A
.
." -~_..-
SPS = same as principal structure
* whichever is greater
** Per subdivided lot, excluding parking areas under buildings
'?7Tnlj},O, 50,7 1/08
Margie's 4_28_08 Tnmillmi PUD-4.28-0g MMSS
Page 4 of 10
[!lCO""
po-<:> OJ
'0
. ""
E~L()
",,"
.:!:::cO'l
",,,,,,,
'0...,0-
c
"
0>
<{
r-
5: Z(l)~
z Oil!
:i ~~fn
~rJl ~~~
tiffi ~~~
~~ ~~~
lI)5 l-J
!!2@ M~~
dc: i6:ii
:z~ ~<lii
iI!~ ~~'"
~il <OW
'w w~m
Za. ~ ..J
z> ~ ;J
-0 5(1-5:
gffi ~5(/)U
~!;1 ~"zg
UJ~ ~~~~
~w wa.<{1-
O::J ~~liJ~
(.)0 u..t5~
!:25 ~o~w
5~ ;;\h~
n.~ 5~f-~
iJi !:2~ <{F~O
~ ~ ~~~~
z'-: N
zw
Om
;==>
U
iI!~
~ili
roil!
~o
wZ
iEO
zZ1
o III
OZ
WW
~'"
~~
ooz
5~
~J;
me
JW
;/!<
"'''
"'0
",'"
\1I!'G
Eiiiir
dw~
~~g
o~"
zO<ll
~
,.,
'.,
""><:
'"
""'",-. 1111
" '
"~ i
.... :'
l
!
,"
J
h
: I" ... -.:
\' i i
t- . .J.'.
:~rr"-"---'-:! .
.IIIH ,:
-,.?....1". J.
!i
>
~
~
"
"
'"
~ ~
'" "'
"'
-'
9 ~
lJ' 0
iQ W " ~
~ ~ ~ z C/)
O~Ggz1l
~ al - ~
5 (I) D... ~
W
D
86>86J
;!
!l
!'l ~
G ~ ~
~ .J
o II: ~ 't
~ ul'! :!
II) I-~ <> ~
Q @::li" "l.
fj ~~ ~l ~
!--. wi2 ti"
'" ..'
~ tJ C;
~ ~ ~l \'
~~
8 -<.i g
Ii .i': ~ I\' -
I P i ~
! ~ .
@I
;
~
,
.
e
EXHIBIT D
FOR
TAMIAMI CROSSING CI'UD
LEGAL DESCIUPTlON
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 55 of 94
The subject property being 25.45olo acres is located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26
East, and is more fully described as follows:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "0.S.-3" OF TRAIL RIDGE,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 71
THROUGH 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
THENCE RUN NORTH 89055'57" WEST, ALONG TI-IE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT
"0.S.-3", FOR A DISTANCE OF 683.32 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LANDS
DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3620 AT PAGES 2872 THROUGH 2876 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH
00004'03" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS, FOR A DISTANCE OF
200.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT "C" OF SAID TRAIL RIDGE;
THENCE RUN NORTH 89055'57" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 196.99 FEET TO THE NORTHERLYMOSTWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT "C";
THENCE RUN SOUTH 02030'29" WEST, ALONG TlIE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT
"C", FOR A DISTANCE OF 1 00.09 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 90000'00" WEST, ALONG
TIlE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "C", FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EAST R1GHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD #951 (RIGHT-OF-WAY
VARIES); THENCE RUN NORTH 02030'29" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF -WAY
LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.20 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 04012'04" EAST,
ALONG SAID EAST RlGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 640.85 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 89042'14" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.66 FEET; THENCE
RUN NORTH 15042'49" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.41 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH
35039'44" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERIJY
RlGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD No. 90 (TAMIAMI TRAIL 200.00 FOOT RlGHT-
OF-WAY); THENCE RUN SOUTH 54020'16" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,927.32 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35039'44"
WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
TRAIL RIDGE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
44 AT PAGES 71 THROUGH 77 OF TilE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 54020'16" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
SAID TRAIL RIDGE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 855.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 25.451 ACRES, MORE
OR LESS.
7rnn ~ 4--- 67 ( I () 8
Margie's 4_28_08 Tamiami PUD - 4-28-08 MMSS
Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT E
FOR
TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD
DEVIATIONS
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 56 of 94
A. Landscape buffer(s).
The developer requests a deviation from Subsection 4.06.02, Table 2.4 (footnote 3) of the
LDC, only for that portion of the project immediately north of Tract A. This deviation
would provide relief fi'om the above-referenced LDC provision which requires a
landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots, to permit a
zero foot setback between buildings and no landscape buffer(s) between separately
platted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan.
B. Project signage.
The dcveloper requests a deviation from Subsections 5.06.04.C.I and 5.06.04.C.3 which
permits a maximum of two pole or momunent signs per street frontage at a maximum of
80 square feet each and 1,000 feet separation, to permit a maximum of three on-premises
pole or monumcnt signs along the projects U.S. 41 frontage. The maximum sign area for
the three signs shall not exceed 160 square feet, and no single sign shall exceed 80 square
feet.
C. Parking distribution.
The developer requests a deviation from Subsections 5.05.08.E of the LDC which permits
no more than 50% of the required parking area for interior lots to be located between the
primary fayade and the abutting street, to permit 100% of the required parking area to be
pelmitted between the primary fayade and the Collier Boulevard road frontage. The
landscape buffef adjacent to Collier Boulevard shall be enhanced with 16-foot tall canopy
tree clusters, and palm tree clusters, as identified in deviation Exhibit G, and as desclibed
in Exhibit F, Item 2.G.2. The developer shall provide a covered pedestrian walkway as
described in Subsection2.D.2. of Exhibit F ofthis Ordinance.
D. Fences and Walls.
The developer requests a deviation from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.E.2, which requires
placement of a concrete or masonry wall between non-residential and residential
development, to pcrmit the Tamiami Crossing CPUD to provide type B buffer, without a
masonry wall where the proj ect abuts residentially-zoned property in two areas ofthe site.
~
-01'1 m l~j)... S/I /08
Mnrgie's 4~28_08 Tamiami PUD - 4.28.08 MMSS
Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT F
FOR
T AMIAMI CROSSING CPUD
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 57 of 94
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
1. Regulations for development of the Tamiami Crossing CPUD shall be in accordance with
the contents of this CPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth
Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to
which said regulations rclate, Whcrc this CPUD Ordinancc docs not provide devclopmcnt
standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise
applicable shall apply.
2. Any commitments made by ille developer will be added to this exhibit as they are made
during the rcview and approval proccss.
A. WATER MANAGEMENT
I. A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
surface water permit application shall be sent to Collier County
Development Services Staff with the final plat or SDP submittal.
2. A copy of the SFWMD surface water permit shall be submitted to Collier
County prior to final SDP or final plat approval.
3. The stormwater management control elevation discharge shall be 4.9 feet
NGVD or above.
B. UTILITIES
I. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water
and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed,
constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with
applicable County ordinances and oilIer applicable County rules and
regulations.
2. Except on an interim basis for structures such as sales/construction trailers
and models, the project shall be required to hook-up to and utilize public
water and scwer facilities.
C. TRANSPORTATION
I. The Conceptual Master Plan depicts two potential vehicular and pedestrian
interconnections with the adjacent property to the south. The developer
shall assure that these interconnections accommodate the perpetual use of
such access by incorporating the appropriatc language into the applicable
development covenants, and SDP or plat.
~m(.l/.l- c,/rlu&
Margie's 4_28_08 Tamiami PUD - 4.28-08 MMSS
Page g of to
D.
PLANNING
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 58 of 94
I. Enhanced Landscape Buffer along the Collier Boulevard fi'ontage. The 20-foot
Type 'D' Buffer shall be enhanced with additional palm trees provided at a
ratio of 3 pahns per 60 linear feet. The required canopy trees shall be a
minimum of 16-feet tall at the time of planting and shall be staggered in
clusters 20 feet on center. Clusters of 3 palms between fequired canopy tree
clusters shall be planted no more than 8 feet on center. The palms shall be 12-
foot to 18-foot staggered heights. The distance between required canopy tree
clusters and palm clusters shall be no more thau 30 feet apart. All required
plants shall be native species.
2. The developer shall provide a covered pedestrian walkway over the longest
landscape island (which island is depicted on Exhibit C, the Conceptual
Master Plan) nlIming from the parking area of the project to the main entrance
of the building on Tract C. The walkway shall be a minimum of eight feet in
width with the covering to be a minimum of twclve fcet at its peak. The
covered walkway may be in the fonn of a pergola or arbor covered with shade-
producing vegetation.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL
I. An analysis demonstrating that post-development pollutant loading will be
less than or equal to predevelopment loading iu general accordance with the
Harvey Harper methodology shall be completed and submitted for review and
approval at the time of site development plan review.
,.--.
'l/lI'Y1,()'o-- Sit 108
Margie's 4_28_08 Tamiami PUD - 4-28-0& MMSS
Page 9 of 10
..;Ii I
Q.c'" ~
.~ I
~.. !
~i~! !
l>, ~
aJOO ~i' ! ~
000 ~.H ! I
0
ON
Zo o:~ir. I ~
E~ ~
'" '" ~i' 'E
-C
-"
.g:-, >< ~Il !
c: ~Iill (E
())
0) rr,
.0: N . I ~
. > ,
0'0 ,
A
tj
~~
ZE
~;::J0~
C.?~.~
e:i~t::M
rIl.Q.;~'C
~~~.~
~rIlf;l;l...
UA ...
~j
~
F-<
~
.~
0..
'"
-'"
..
(/)
'"
~
8
t!:1
;..,
'"
g
u
H
~
;:l
aJ
P
...
~
f-<
o
N
rr,
N
'8
~ ~
gjlo
!lP::
(/) "
bI)
"""
:D "
;:ltr:
o
CI
rr,
N
~
~
0..
~
o
P::
N
~
CI
..
H
...
~
~
Q
=>
'"
-
'"
'"
.~
i::
E-<
rr,
N
rr,
~
~
~ g
~ ~~
~ "
u ~~
~ ~~
H
o
~
IZl
IZl
~ ~
u _
~ ~~
~ ~~
f--r Q<I)
rr,
N
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 60 of 94
Item VLA.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF MARCH 5 & 6. 2008
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.:
Petition Name:
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875
TAMIAMI CROSSING COMMERCIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
KRG 951 and 41, LLC
Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.
Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Applicant/Developer:
Engineering Consultant:
Environmental Consultant:
II. LOCATION:
The subject property is located in the southeastem quadrant of the Tamiami Trail
(US-41) and Collier Boulevard (CR-95I) intersection, in Section 3, Township 51
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONING
DESCRIPTION
N - Commercial Convenience (C-2), General
Commercial (C-4), Heavy Commercial
(C-5) and Falling Waters PUD
US 41, CYS Pharmacy,
undeveloped land, and
commercial uses
S - Artesa Pointe PUD
Wal-Mart and single-family
residences
E - Rural Agricultural (A)
Undeveloped State-owned
land
W - C-4, Residential Single Family (RSF-3)
and Eagle Creek PUD
Shell gas station and
Circlc-K, then CR-951 and
commercial uses
,--..
IV. PROJECT DESCRfl>TION:
RAe Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 61 of 94
Page 2 of 12
The subject property is presently designated both Mixed Use Activity Center
Subdistrict (#18), Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and Henderson Creck Mixed
Use Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land
Use Element (FLUE) ofthc Growth Management Plan (GMP). A companion item
to this CPUD rezone petition has been submitted to the Comprehcnsive Planning
Department for a Small Scale GMP Amendment (CPSS-06-01) to incorporate a
7 J-acre A-zoned parcel, designatcd Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, into
Activity Center #18. If approved, the entire site would be designated Mixed Use
Activity Ccnter #18, except for .88 acres along the southem property boundary,
which would rcmain part of the Henderson Creek Mixcd Use Subdistrict and is
the subject of a second companion item, PUDA-2007-AR-11734.
PUDA-2007-AR-11734 (the "Artesa Pointc PUDA"), as stated, proposes to
remove 0.88 acres from the Artcsa Pointe PUD to incorporate this acreage into
the proposed Tamiami Crossing PUD. As the Hendcrson Creek Subdistrict in
which the 0.88 acres is located is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square fect of
commercial-and the approved Artesa Pointe PUD alrcady allows the maximum
325,000 square feet of commercial-no commercial development would be
eligible for this acreage. Instead, the arca would bc used to mect parking
requirements for the CPUD.
Pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.06.C.3, the Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) zoning district is construed to include the entire range of uses permitted
in the General Commercial (C-I) through (C-5) zoning districts, The proposed
CPUD, if approved, would allow for 235,000 square feet of general commercial
and retail uses consistent with these districts. A maximum zoned height of 60 feet
would be permittcd, with actual height, including appurtenances, to be a
maximum of 67 feet.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element:
As prcviously stated, the subject property is designated Mixed Use Activity Center
Subdistrict, (Activity Center 1118) Urban Coastal Pringe Subdistrict, and Henderson
Crcek Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element, Future Land Use Map
and Map Series. This area includes 18.15," acres of A, Agricultural, C-2 and C-4
zoning. A petition for 7.3* acres of the 25.4H acres Cllt1.cntly zoned A, Agricultural,
and designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, has been submitted to the
Comprehensive Planning Department for a Small Scale Growth Managcl11cnt Plan
Amendment to incorporate the 7.3," acre parcel into Activity Center #18, making a
total of 25.45," acres for a Planned Unit Developmcnt, to be known as Tamiami
Crossings CrUD. This CPUD rezone is therefore contingent upon approval of that
EAe Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 62 of 94
Page 3 of t2
GMP amendment. If approved, the cntire site would be designated Mixcd Use
Activity Center, except for the ,88 acres that would remain designated Henderson
Creek Mixcd Usc Subdistrict.
AItesa Pointc PUD presently comprises all of the Henderson Creek Subdistrict, and is
in the process of a PUD amendmcnt to rcmove .88 acres from its boundarics, to bc
incorporated into the proposed Tamiami Crossing PUD boundaries. The Henderson
Creek Subdistrict is limited to a maximum of325,000 square feet of commercial. The
approved Artesa Pointe PUD allows for a maximum of 325,000 square feet of
commercial. Therefore, through incorporating thc .88 acres into the proposed
Tamiami Crossing PUD, thc boundaries remain within the the Hcndcrson Crcck
Subdistrict, and no c0ll1111ercial building area is eligible to be developed on the .88
acres.
The Mixed Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new
commercial zoning in locations where traffie impacts can readily be accommodated,
to avoid strip and disorganized pattems of commcrcial dcvelopment, and to create
focal points within the community.
Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows:
"Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in the form of a
Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such
Planned Unit Developments except requests for rezoning must meet the requirements
for rezoning in the Land Development Code". The project was submitted as a
Commercial Planned Unit Developmcnt.
"The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed
commercial uses, within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of
Mixed Use Activity Center." The proposed development is located within Activity
Center #18. The area within the proposed pun is currently vacant, however is zoned
C-2, C-4 and A, and is compatible with the sUITOlll1ding zoning within the Activity
Ccnter boundarics. (More specific commercial analysis was submitted with the GMP
amendment petition.) The sutTOlmding area within a two mile radius consists of C-2,
C-4, PUD, Agricultural and residential uses.
~.
"Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used
as a guide to explore Ihefeasibility of the requested land iises." No market study was
submitted with this application. However, the site is presently zoned C-2 and C-4 and
A. Further, the PUD document proposes retail, office, professional and business
service uses that appear to be compatible with the existing commercial zoning in
Activity #18 and a two road-mile area. (More specific commercial analysis was
submitted with the GMP amendment pctition.)
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 63 of 94
Page 4 of 12
"Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two
radial miles." There is a variety of existing land uses within Activity Center #18 and
within two radial miles, including commcrcial, rcsidential single-family, residential
multi-family and mixed-use PUDs.
"Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads." The projcct proposes
access to US 41 and Collier Boulevard (CR 951). TranspOItation Planning
Department has reviewed this petition for road capacity and has found it sufficient.
"Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering fOI~
adjoining properties." Compatibility is also required by FLUE Policy 5.4.
Comprehensive Planning staff defcrs the compatibility determination to the
Departmcnt of Zoning and Land Developmcnt Review staff as part of their review of
this petition in its entirety.
"Natural or man-made constraints. " Staff is not aware of any physical constraints to
development of this property.
"Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. " This criterion is to be
reviewed by Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of
this petition in its entirety.
"Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activily
Centers contained in the Land Development Code. n Access provisions are included
in the PUD Document. Additionally, Transp01tation Planning staff has reviewed the
petition for compliance with access requirements and limitations.
"Coordinate traffic flow on-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact
Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access
point location and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting
roadway(s}, location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s}, and internal and
external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. " Detailed traffic review has been
performcd by the Transportation Planning Depmtment.
"Interconnection(s) for pedestrian, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and
future adjacent projects." The project proposes two vehicular and pedestrian
interconnects with the Artesa Pointe PUD.
"Conformance with architectural design standards as identified in the Land
Development Code." The PUD document provides for commercial land uscs designed
to be harmonious with the adjacent Artesa Pointe PUD and surrounding commercial
development by using common architectural themes, quality screeningfbuffering, and
native vegetation, whcncver feasible and applying the provisions of the specific
section of tbe LDC that are othcr-wise applicable.
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 88
June 10, 2008
Page 64 of 94
Page 5 of t2
Policy 5.4:
Requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development
Review as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would
note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the
subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject
proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and
development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building
mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc.
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 conccptual PUD Master Plan indicates two right-
in/right-outs and one full access connection between the project and US 41 to the
north, which is a principal arterial highway, and one right-in/right-out connection to
CR 951 to the west, which is a minor arterial highway.
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 to minimize
the need for traffic signals. A loop road is not depicted on the conceptual PUD
Master Plan and might not be expected given the conceptual master plan layout.
However, that Master Plan does depict parking lot aisles and drives that connect to
US-41 and Collier Boulevard.
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local
stl'eets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other
developments regardless of land use type. The conceptual PUD Master Plan allows
for two (2) potcntial vehicular and pcdestrian interconnects between the proposed
Tamiami Crossings CPUD and Artesia Pointe PUD to the south of the project, but the
interconnections themselves should be absolute and expected to be pmt of the
SDPs/PPLs.)
,-
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.
Being a CPUD, there are no residcntial densities; however, the development
standards and conditions are consistent with other similar types of commercial
planned devclopments.
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 65 of 94
Page 6 of 12
CONCLUSION: Bascd upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed
rezone may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
Objective 2.2 of thc Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality
standards.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the spccific and
cumulative impacts of stormwater nmoff, stonnwater systems should be designed
in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an
attcmpt is madc to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water
(discharge) to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
interconnected dlY detention areas, a lake and a wetlands to provide water quality
retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events.
Pllrsuant to Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.1, a copy ofthe Environmental Impact
Statement will be provided to staff and the RookelY Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve for their rcvicw.
The projcct as proposcd is consistent with thc Policics in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of
the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons:
Grcater than fificcn percent (15 %) of the existing native vegetation will be
retained on-site and set aside as preserves and be protected by a permanent
conservation mechanism to prohibit nu'ther developmcnt. Selection of preserves,
are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1.
In accordance with Policies 6.1.1 (6) and 6.1.4, habitat management and exotic
vegetation rcmoval/maintenance plans shall bc required at the time of Site
Development Plan/Construction Plan suhmittal. Preserve areas shall be rcquired
to be maintaincd free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, as rcquired by Policy 6.2.6.
Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the
time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required
to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Poliey 6.1.7 and the LDC.
EAC Meeling
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 66 of 94
Page 7 of 12
The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statemcnt (ElS) pursuant to Policy
6,1.8 has been satisfied.
Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as requircd in Policies 6.2.1 and
6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency
permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site
improvements (Site Development Plan/Construction Plans). As stated in Policies
6.2.3 and 6.2.4, whcre permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts
to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for sllch
impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation
of wetlands and the natLU'!11 functions of wetlands within this area.
In accordancc with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the
PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve arcas are identified in the
PUD document and are in accordance with the uses identified in Policy 6.2.5.
Uses within prcscrve areas shallllot include any activity detrimental to drainage,
flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife
conservation and preservation.
Wildlife surveys for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat managcment plans
for listed species are required at the time of Site Development Plml/Construction
Plan submittal.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater Mana2cment:
Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The
surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and
pcrmitted by South Florida Water Managcment District (SFWMD), are exempt
from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated
stormwater to be discharged into Preservcs as allowed in Section 3.05.07."
Tamiami Crossings has applied for a SFWMD permit to construct and operate a
stormwater management system. The application number is 070316-23, and it
was applied for on 16 Mar 2007. It has undergone 5 Requests for Additional
Information (RAI).
This proposed water management system consists of interconnected inlets and
detention basins. The first half inch of runoff is directed to dry detention areas for
pretreatment. Excess runoff will be routed into wet detention areas. The water
quality detention amount will be as per code. Final discharge will be through a
,~ contTol structure to a spreader swale along the property line and then to the US 41
roadside swale system, east to Henderson Creek.
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 67 of 94
rogo 8 of t2
The pctitioner cstimates the dry season water table at 2.1 ft. NGVD. The on-site
wetlands have been incorporatcd into the rWlofftreatment chain. Once runoff has
received pretreatment, it will be directed to thc wetlands for storage. This should
help maintain a reasonable hydroperiod in those wetlands.
Environmental:
Site Descriution:
The project site is undeveloped 25.45 acre parcel forested with Pine Flatwoods,
Cypress-Cabhage Palm and Hydric Pine Flatwoods. Also on site are
approximately 1.92 acres of previously clcared Jand. The castern most portion of
the property was historically used for agricultural purposes (row crops).
Wetlands:
The project site contains approximately 13.68 acres of Collier County
jwisdictional wetlands and approximately 11.77 acres of uplands. Wctlands were
verified by SFWMD staff on May 11,2007. Four wetlands occur on site and these
are identified on the exhibits included in the EIS. Wctlands on site include Pine-
Cypress-Cabbage Palm (FLUCFCS Code 624), Hydric Pine Flatwoods
(FLUCFCS Code 625) and a Hydric Utility Easement (FLUCFCS Code 830H).
The total percentage of proposed wetland impacts on site is 87 percent, for a total
11.96 acres. Approximately I. 72 acres of wctlands will be preserved on the
property. A UMAM analysis of the proposed impacts is included as an attachment
in the EIS.
Seasonal high water elevations and normal pool elevations within the wetlands on
site were determined by locating water marks, moss collars and/or lichen lines on
pine trees within the wetlands. Spot elevation at these locations, were 4.91, 4.96
and 4.95 feet NGYD.
The approved and pel111itted control elevation for the project to the south is 4.1
feet NGYD. In combination with the on-site biological indicators and control
elevation of the adjacent property, the proposed control elevation for the project
site is 4.1 feet NGYD. No improvements to the hydrology of thc wetlands on site
are proposed. Trcated stormwater will be allowed to enter the wetland portion of
the preserve as described in this staff report and in the Surface and Ground Water
Management section of the EIS.
HAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 68 of 94
Page 9 of 12
PI'eservation Re(]uirements:
Approximately 23.53 acres of native vegetation occur on the project site. A
portion of the cxisting native vegetation on site (0.87 acres) has already been
accounted for in the adjacent Artesa Pointe PUD and therefore is excluded from
the native vegctation rcquirement calculations for the projcct site. In accordance
with the requircments of the LDC and GMP, 15 percent (3.4 acres) of the nativc
vegetation will be retained on-site.
The proposed on site preserve area includes 1.72 acres of Pine-Cypress-Cabbage
Palm wetland and 1.77 acres of Pine Flatwoods upland habitat. The proposed
preserve is located adjacent to two of the existing preserves within the Artesa
Pointe PUD, to the south.
Listed Species:
A .listed species survey was conducted by two cnvironmental scientists from
Boyland Environmental Consultants, Inc. on September 30, 2005 and October 27,
2005. FUJCFCS mapping had been conducted on the property prior to this
survey. An updated species survey was also performed on February 13, 20, 22
and 23, 2007.
During the surveys, particular attention was placcd on locating potential fox
squin'elnests, red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) cavity trees, and bald eagle nests
within the forested portions of the propcrty. Nearly 100 percent of the property
that was considered potential gophcr t0l10ise habitat was surveyed. A list of listed
species which could potentially occur on site is included in the Protected Species
Survcy included in the EIS.
No listcd wildlifc species were found on the property. Several listed plants were
identified on site. These consisted of epiphytes including several species of air
plant (Tillandsia spp.) and butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis). Listed plants
that may be impactcd because of exotic vegetation removal or development will
be relocated into the preserve, where feasible.
~
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 69 of 94
Pogo 10 of 12
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Commercial Planned Unit Development No.
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875 "Tamiami Crossing CrUD" with the following
conditions:
StOrInw3ter M3n3!!.ement:
I. The treatment system must be designed to treat the first inch and a half of
runoff from the site for water quality. This is as per the latcst Collicr
County standards.
Environmental:
1. Add the following sentence to Note #2 on thc PUD master plan and on the
Conceptual Water Management Plan.
"A minimum of3.43 acres of native vegetation shall be retained or providcd
in accordance with the LDC."
2. Add an "Environmental" subsection to the "Development Commitments"
section of tbe PUD document and include the following condition in the
subsection.
"An analysis demonstrating that post development pollutant loading will be
less than or equal to prcdevelopment loading in general accordance with tbe
Harvey Harper methodology, shall be completed and submitted for review
and approval prior to final site planJconstruction plan approval."
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 70 of 94
Page II ofl2
PREPARED BY:
/)
~. ~"t)
KI,P.E.
ENGINEERING R JEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
t, F1i6 (:f)
DATE
ST~GER
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
:2/6/J Q? }~
DATE
c}o;L - iJJ) '/n.--
JO~DA VID MOSS, AICP
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DAT;/Io / t)~
,,,.--.,
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 71 of 94
Page 120fl2
REVIEWED BY:
( C"'2 ...1
.\ //).' "....
.r..,~''''.ll_..,. /'/. 'b.-.......~~.
-BAJ1BA.M.g...-BBRGEWN ";:'3"" (11 ',".J
P-RJNC1PAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2-ff-og-
DATE
~~IfA~ 01_0',08
WiLL1AM D. LORE ,Jr., .E., DIRECTOR, DATE
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
,
JEFF '. RI HT
ASSI NT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFIC OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AITORNEY
;i.(-:rlo?
,
DATE
APPROVED BY:
iJ~~ ,.219,io'3-
EPH K. SCHtvUIT, ADMINISTRATOR, ~
MMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Vanasse
Daylor
ZONING TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
TAMIAMI CROSSING
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 72 of 94
~I:~.~ l %II
,~, __ tw. -l:ij
~ ,', '. ,,,,,
July 20, 2006 - Revised March 29, 2007
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & US 41
Collier County, Florida
Prepared By:
Vanasse & Daylor, LLP
Prepared For:
KIte Development
30 S, Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Job1;l80a14.04
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875 REV: 2
Project: 2005060079
Date: 5/14/07 DUE: 6/11/07
.~
111J0 He. Brillany Boulevard. Suile .00, Fo~ My"', Florida mOl I ll9.4JJ.4601 F 239.4JJ.4636 . vanday.com
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 73 of 94
STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION
I cel.ti/y that tills TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT has beelJ prepared by me or under
my Immediate supervision a/lll that I have experiellce and traillillg in the field of
Traffic ami TransportatiolJ Engineering.
El'Ilest R. Spl'adlillg P.E.
Florida Registratioll #61235
Vanasse & Daylol', LLP
12730 New Brittl/lty Boulevard, Suite 600
Fort Myers, Florida 33907
(239) 437-4601
Collaborators
Reed K. J./',/ P.R.
Joll" T. Vage-B
Swal'llp Makllmjee
Tamlaml Cro$slllg
Statement of CertifICation
8{)a.7.4)l'o4.ZTIS_002_E)(I~I$.x1s + E~hlbill Lac Map
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 74 of 94
U5041
N
W<>E
S
Not to Sr.OIla
"00'
PM "rlps(lnExternllRoMlVlar byTIPS
!'IifJlol<
foIllJ: Iim
604 3<14 3<10
EagleCrukDrj
ProposellW"l.Mart
I'flniolooRoad
SR'l'SI
Vanasse - UrbtnPlll\lli"t TlllfilE~IlttIiI( YW'lkfJl~ J''''!=
ludl(~PI J.rchiltcl(He (nrir~lrnt!1l~ll(iull Kilo Development Tam/ami Crossing
(ml[~lI<<rifll Il3U 3qS.MIi!lJJ8~:;t""'
r-- Daylor /.1rJJa~M(,>lj5.tN402(N:
IlllONrlI',ilrl'1~11ff.lo.PIIlial Location Map
~~ ItfIHj1H.11 JlNI M/l.'r;/lilO<Jl Exhibit 1
,nt.OWIl rm.UI.<<U
"'lMI1Lt11l
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 75 of 94
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................,..........................................................-..................................1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... ............................................................................. I
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... t
PROPOSED D EV ELOPMBNT ............. ..... ....... .............., .......... ................... ......... ........ ......_.. ........ ........... ......... ... ..... 3
EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE ......................................................................................._....................3
AREA CONDITIONS,......................................................................................................................................,........... 3
STUDY AREA.. ........... .... .... ................... .... .... ...... ... ............. ...... ....... ........... ...... .......... .... ............ .... .......... .... ...... ... 3
EXIS11NG GEOMETRIC CONDITfONS ................,....".........................."".".............................."....................,,3
PLANNED ROADW A Y IMPROVEMENTS ...."....'''........._.............................................."....................,.....,.,.,...4
SITE-GENERATED TRIPS ........................ ......................................................................."........................................5
TRIP GENERATION ...........................................,,,...,, ............................................_.........."...........................,...,...5
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ..........".................................,."....................................".. ............... 5
SIGNIFICANCE TEST ANAL YSBS ...............................................................,......................................................6
PROJECTED BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES..................................................................8
ANALYSES .... ............. ............... ............................. ............"... ....... ......... .... ................... ...... ............ ........ ...... ..... ...... 10
LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE ANAL YSES................................................................. ....................................,_..... 10
SITE ACCESS ANA LySES........... ..... ............ ..... .... ..... ..... .................. ............... ....... ........ ........ ...................... ..... 13
IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS .............................................,..................................,..,............................................... 18
Ust of Tables
Table I PM Peak Net Extemal Project Traffic
Table 2 Peak Hour Project Traffic Distribution
Table 3 Significance Test Analyses
Table 4 Link specific Background Traffic
Table 5 Background Traffic Projections
Table 6 Growth Based on Collier County ConcUlTcncy Segments
Table 7 Growth Based on Growth Rates
Table 8 SYNCHRO Analysis
Ust of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Location Map
Exhibit 2 Trip Distribution
Exhibit 3 PM Peak Hour Site-Generated Trip Assignments
Exhibit 4 PM Peak Hour Pass-By Trip
Exhibit 5 PM Peak Hour Net Site-Generated Trip Assignments
Exhibit 6 PM Peak Hour Background Traffic
Exhibit 7 PM Peak Hour Total Traffic
Appendix
Tamlaml Cro$$lng
Page I
Table of Contents
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 76 of 94
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Impact Statement (rIS) colllaills additional informatioll in response to commellts
receivedfrom Collier County on December 27, 2006. Changes germane to the comments on this
report are shown ill italics.
The project site is in the southeast quadrant of the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & Tamiami Tfail
(US 41) intersection in Collier Cotmty (See Exhibit 1). The Project proposed land use will
consist of approximately 213,000 square feet (sf) of Free-Standing Discount Superstore, 10,000
sf General Office, 6,000 sf Quality Restaurant and 6,000 sf High Turn Restaurant. Accesses will
be via US 41, SR 951 and the adjacent Wal-Malt shopping center.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
A1J shown in Tables 6 & 7, the link 1cvel of service analyses indicatc that SR 951 from US 41 to
Manatec Road and US 41 from Collier Boulcvard to San Marco Road arc projected to operate in
excess of the pCrfOlnlanCe standard maximum service flowrates (SF"".,) under Background
Traffic conditions. The only feasible mitigation strategy consists of widening SR 951 north of
Manatee Road into a six-lane facility, and widening US 41 east of Collier Boulevard into a four-
lane facility.
SR 951 from US 41 to Manatee Road was analyzed as a six-lane facility under Total Traffic
conditions. This roadway segment is projected to operate within SF","x. US 41 from Collier
Boulevard to Greenway Road is projected to opcrated in excess of SF","x under Total Traffic
conditions because no widening was considered in this analysis.
The following intersection improvements were identified as being needed in order to
accommodate projected total traffic:
/'""
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & Wal-Mart South Access:
T amlaml Crossing
BOB74_ZTIS-003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 77 of 94
. Full-movement signalized intersection
. 800-foot southbound dual left turn lane
. 450-foot northbound exclusive right turn lane
. 300-foot westbound dual left turn lane.
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & North Access:
. Right In/Right Out unsignalized intersection
. 400-foot northbound exclusive right turn lane
. 1 OO-foot westbound right turn lane
US 41 & Wesl Access:
. Right In/Right Out unslgnalized intersection
. 400-foot eastbound right turn lane
. 50.foot northbound exclusive right turn lane
US 41 & East Access:
. Fufl~movement signalized intersection
. 400.foot eastbound right turn lane
. 575-foot westbound left turn lane
. I 25-foot northbound exclusive left turn lane
The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fees as building
pelmits are issued for the proposed project. In addition, the developer is a member of the US 41
developer consOltium which is working on a Development Contribution Agreement (DCA) to
improve operation on US 41 East ofSR 951 and the SR 9511US 41 intersection.
Tamlami Crossing
2
80874_ZTIS.OOJ.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 78 of 94
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE
The project site is in the southeast quadrant of the Collie,. Boulevard (SR 951) & Tamiami Trail
(US 41) intersection in Collier County (See Exhibit I). The Project proposed land use will
consist of approximately 213,000 square feet (sf) of Free-Standing Discount Superstore, 10,000
sf General Office, 6,000 sf Quality Restaurant and 6,000 of High Turnover Restaurant. Accesses
will be via US 41, SR 951 and the adjacent Wal-Mart shopping center.
AREA CONDITIONS
The description of the existing environment of the site, the surrounding study area, and the
committed improvements, provide a basis for the analysis of the site generated traffic impacts on
the proposed roadway system.
STUDY AREA
The study area contains the following intersections:
. SR 9S1 & US41j
. SR 951 & Manatee Road;
. SR 951 & Championship Drive:
. SR 951 & Mainsail Drive: and
. US 41 & Triangle Boulevard
Exhibit 1 shows the project location as related to the studied roadway system.
EXISTING GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS
Existing roadway geometries were assumed.
Collier Boulevard (SR 951 fCR 951)
r-
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) in the study area is a north-south four-lane divided roadway. SR 951
is functionally classified as an arterial roadway under state jurisdiction south of US 41. CR 951
norUl of US 41 is a four-lane divided arterial roadway under county jurisdiction. The roadway
Tamiami Crossing
3
8OS74_ZTIS.003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 79 of 94
alignment is fairly level and tangent. The speed limit is posted at 45 miles pCI' hour (mph) north
of Eagle Creek and 55 mph south of Eagle Creek.
Tamiami Trail East (US 41)
Tamiami Trail East (US 41) in the study area is a 111ral arterial roadway under state jurisdiction.
It is a six-lane divided roadway through the SR 951 inlersection, and reduces to a two-lane
undivided roadway east of SR 951. Alignment of the roadway is fairly level and tangent. In the
study area, the limit speed of US 41 decreases from 60 to 50 mph. Therefore, the assumed posted
speed limit is 50 mph.
US 41 is signed as a north-south highway throughout the state of Florida. It has a northwest-
southwest alignment through the study area. For purposes of discussion throughout this
doeument, US 41 will be described as an east-west highway, with Miami oriented toward the
east and Naples toward the west. The study area was determined to be US 41, east of SR-951 in
the vicinity of the project.
Manatee Road
Manatee Road is a two-lane undivided collector strcct. It is under county jurisdiction, and has a
posted speed limit of35 mph.
PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The only roadway improvements in the study area that are either planned or underway is the six-
lane expansion of CR 951 from Davis Boulevard to US 41 scheduled to start in late 2006 learly
2007.
There is a Development Contribution Agreement (DCA) to design and construct the widening of
SR 951 approximately Y, mile south of US 41 north through the intersection from four lanes to
six lanes. This is scheduled to be completed in October 2006.
In addition, the US 41 developer consortium is working with Collicr County staff on a DCA that
will address intersection improvements at US 41 & SR 951 as well as US 41 east ofSR 951.
Tamiami Crossing
4
SQ874_ZTIS.OOl.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 80 of 94
SITE-GENERATED TRIPS
TRIP GENERA nON
Site-generated trips were estimated using Trip Generation, Internal Capture and Pass-By
software (TIPS) developed by FDOT (see Appendix A). This program incorporates trip
generation rates and deduction procedures consistent with the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) JrilLGeneration Manual (7111 Edition) and the ITE Trio Generation Handbook
(2nd Edition) in accordance with Collier County policy in effect when the repOll was published
and as agreed with Collier COUllty staff. Table I shows the summary of the net ncw extemal
site-generated trip estimates. These trips include the reduction of pass-by trips. The TIPS
software does not provide pass-by rates for Quality Restaurants and Free-standing Discount
Stores. These values were manually inseried into the TIPS program as agreed between Collier
Coullty staff and the analyst. The TIPS computations resulted in an overall 4% intemal capture
deduction for the site.
TABLE I
BUILDOUT SITE-GENERATED TRIP eSTIMATES
TAMIAMI CROSSING NET NEW EXTERNAL
SITE-GENERATED TRIP ESTIMATES (TtPS)
PM Peak
!mal fullilJ: Elli
684 344 340
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
~
Tbe site-generated trip distributious used in tbis study correspond to the originally approved
Wal-Mart report prepared by Kimley-Horn dated June 2004. The distributions were applied to
the site-generated traffic volumes to determinc the site-generated vebicle trip assignments. The
PM Peak Hour tmffic was used because retail commercial land uses have higher volumes in the
PM Peak Hour. The Peak Hour project traffic distribution is shown in Table 2. All trip
distribution percentages add up to 100% except for the portion of Collier Boulevard between US
41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road due to numeroUS aCCeSS points between these intersections
that provide attenuation opportunities,
Tarniaml Cross.ing
5
60874JTI5.003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 81 of 94
Exhibit 2 shows a graphical ,'epresentation of the traffic distribution percentages, Exhibit 3
shows the estimated AM Primary Traffic Assignments. Pass-By cstimates are shown in Exhibit
4. PM Site-related Net Traffic Assignments are shown ill Exhibit 5,
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION
blA!:'lli
ffiQt1
TO
DISTRIBUTION
Collier Boulevard
Rattlesnake Hammock Road US 41
US 41 Manatee Road
Manatee Road Championship Drive
Triangle Boulevard Collier Boulevard
Collier Boulevard San Marco Drive
16%
13%
2S%
30%
12%
SR 951
Tamiami Trail East
SIGNIFICANCE TEST ANALYSES
According to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Scction 6.02.02
"M. Significance Tost: impact for the impact traffic analysis purposes for e proposed development
project will be considered significant:
1. On Ihose roadway segments directly accessed by the project where project traffic Is equat to or
greater than 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
2. For those roadway segments immediately adjacent 10 segments which are directly accessed by
the project where project traffic Is greater than or equal to 3% of the adopted LOS standard
service volume; or
3. For all other adjacent segments where the project traffic ts greater than 5% of the adopted LOS
stendard service volume.
Once traffic from a development has been shown 10 be less than significant on any segments using
the above standards, the development's Impact is not required to be analyzed further on any
additional segments."
In other words, a project will have a significant and adverse impact on a state or regionally
significant roadway only if both of the following critcria are met: (1) the project will utilize 3
percent or more of the maximum peak hour service volume at the adopted level of service
standard for the adjacent and next to adjacent link, 5 percent for the other links; and (2) the
roadway is projected to operate below the adopted level of service standard.
Significance was estimated according to Collier County's 3/3/5 rule, and the links were
evaluated to detennine whether projected operation would be within County standards. The data
Tami<\mi Crossing
~
BOB74_ZTIS.OO3.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 82 of 94
resources used for this analysis are shown in Appendix. Exilibit 6 shows the PM Peak Hour
Projected Background Traffic as a result of using the perceptual proportion on each approach of
turning movement tratlic counts. Exhibit 7 shows the Buildo\1t PM Peak HOlll' Total Traffic,
The significance test analyses for the adjacent roadway network (see Table 3) indicate (hat SR
951 from the north aecess to Fiddlers Creek Drive and US 41 from Triangle to Collier Boulcvard
and from West Access to Naples Reserve Boulevard are projected to have site-generated primary
trips that are greater than 3 percent of the AUIR Performance Standard Maximum Service
Flowrate (SF"..,), SR 951 north of US 41 and south of Fiddlcrs Creek Drive and US 41 west of
Triangle Boulevard and east of Naples Preserve Boulevard are not projected to be significantly
impacted.
TABLE 3
PM PEAK HOUR SIGNIFICANCE TEST
Site as
STD Dlr Site % of
I.Jnk From 12 M:"""" :Ii:.Iwi LOS Std
Collier 81vd (CR95I) Davis Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 3,270 NB 17 0.5%
Collier Blvd (CR95I) Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Tamlaml Trail East (U5 41) 3,330 NB 54 1.6%
Collier Blvd (SR 951) Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Project ACCQSS 2,370 NB 139 5.9%
Collier Blvd (SR 951} Pro] act Access Wal Mart South Acces1i 2,370 N8 65 2.7%
Collier Blvd (SR 951) Wal Mart South Access Manatee Rd 2,370 NB 120 5.1%
Collier 81vd (SR 951) Manatee Rd Fiddlers Creek Pkwy 2,S90 NB 86 3.3%
Collier 8tvd (SR 951) Fiddlers Creek Pkwy Mainsail Dl'lve 2,590 NB 69 2.7%
Collier Blvd (SR 9S I) Mainsail Drive Isle of Capri Blvd 2,590 NB 51 2.0%
Collier Blvd (SR 9S I) Mainsail Drive Capri BI,d (CR 9S2) 2,590 NB 34 1.3%
Collier Blvd (SR 951) Capri Blvd (CR 952) Marco Island 2,590 N8 31 1.3%
Tamlaml Trail E>.st(US 41) Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Broward Street 3,500 EB 11 1.2%
Tamlami Trail East (US 41 ) Broward Street Bare.foot Will1ams Rd 3,500 EB 58 1.7%
Tami.mi Trail East (US 41) Barefoot Williams Rd Triangle 81vd 3,500 EB 76 2.2%
ramlami Trail East (US 41) Triangle Blvd ColIJer Blvd (SR 951) 3,200 EB 103 3.2%
Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Collier Blvd (SR 951) Project Access 1,075 EB 114 10.6%
T .miaml Trail East (US 4 I) Project Access Naples R.e-serve Blvd 1,075 EB 41 3.8%
Tamlami Trail East (US 41) Naples Reserve Blvd Greenway Rd 1,075 EB 25 2.3%
-
Tamlaml Crossing
7
B\l874_ZTIS.Q03.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 83 of 94
Link LOS analyses will be conducted on the signifLcantly impacted links. The intersections to be
given further analyses include US 41 & SR 951, US 41 & Triangle Boulevard, US 41 & Naples
Reserve Boulevard, SR 951 & Manatee Road, SR 951 & Fiddlers Creek Parkway, SR 951 &
Mainsail Drive and all proposed sitc accesses.
PROJECTED BACI(GROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Background traffLc volumes were devcloped using multiple sources. Specific Link volume data
for SR 951, US 41 and CR 951 were provided by the Collier County Transportation Dopartment.
In order to calculate the Background traffic volumes, the projecting volumes based on recorded
2005 directional Peak Hour volumes and "banked" trips that were assigned to the links for
previously approved developments (see Appendix.Concuo'ency Segment Tables dated Jtme 30,
2006). This is the methodology that is currcntly in use by Collier County for tracking the
availability of reserve capacity on specific roadway Jinks as part of their concurrency
management efforts. Table 4 presents the link-spedfLc background traffic data uscd in the Link
Level of Scrvice analyses discussed elsewhere.
TABLE 4
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS. (CONCURRENCY SEGMENT TABLE)
ConcSegmanti 06.30.2006
CAPA- :g DPK REM
LOS TRIP
NAME FROM TO Z HR BANK TOTVOL CAP
CITY :5 STD
VOL
CollieI' Blvd Davis Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Fld 3,270 6 E 1,650 555 2,405 865
Colller Blvd R3ttl~snake Hammock Rd U541 3,330 6 E 1.730 795 2,525 80S
5R 951 U541 M~natee Rd 2.370 4 D 1.850 352 2.202 168
5R 951 Maniltee Rd Mainsail Dr 2,590 4 0 1,510 286 1.796 794
Taml'lmi Trail Ea:it Rattlesnake Hammock Rd T dangle Blvd 3,500 6 E 1,8l0 453 l.l73 1,2l7
Tamlaml Trail East Triangle BI.....d CollIer Blvd 3,200 6 E 1,470 591 2,061 1,139
Tamlil.mJ Trail Eatt Collier Blvd San Mal'l;o Dr 1,075 2 C 640 613 1,253 .178
Note: The capacity for the segment ofSR 95/ FOIn US 41 to Manatee Rd Is showlt as 2,370 Iltstead of J.970 due 10
a development agreement to widell IMs segment from 4 10 6 lanes and is shown in Collier County's A VIR,
Tamlami Crossing
B
80874_ZTI5.00ldoc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 84 of 94
Growth projections were computed using the 2005 Average Daily Traffic Counts, Collier
County, Table 5 contains the projected background traffic. The projccted background traf'fic
volumes from the dircctional peak hour volume were assigned to the roadway links. Background
Traffic volumes were derived from turning movement and directional counts extracted from thc
Wal-Mart report and/or collected by FTE.
TABLE 5
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS. FIVE YEiAR (2011)
DPK
Growth HR TOTVO~
NAME FROM TO 2001 2004 2005
Rate VOL 2011
2005
Collie, Blvd Oavi$ Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 26,583 34,013 M% 1,850 2,678
Collier Blvd Rattlesmlke Hammock R.d US41 21,077 23,061 2.1% 1,730 1,9BO
SR 951 US41 Man~tee Rd 33.422 35,556 2.1% 1,850 2,094
51'.951 Manatee Rd Mainsail Dr J 3.422 35,556 2.1% 1,510 1,709
TamlamJ Trail East Rattlesnake Hammock Rd T riatlgle Blvd 36,312 40,948 3.0% I,B20 2.179
Tamiaml Trail EanTrlangle Blvd Collier Blvd 26M2 27,758 2.1% 1,470 1,665
TlI.mla.ml TraIl East Collier Blvd San Marco Dr 12,552 15,010 4.6% 640 S37
The roadway capacities werc dcrived from the Concun"Cncy Segment Table, AUlR tables or
frOm the FDOT QLOS table if a link was not on the Concul1'ency Segment Table. Copies of
these data are in Appendix of this report,
The intersection turning movcment data were used to distribute the approach link volumes and to
detelmine the dominant direction of travel as directed by the Collier County Transportation
Planning Director. According to these data, the dominant direction on SR 951 is northbound in
the PM peak, Exhibit 6 shows the proj ected PM Peak Hour Background Traffic that will be used
for the intersection capacity analyses describcd elsewhere in this repOlt.
Note that, in addition to the primary site-generated trips, pass-by trips were also subtracted from
the through traffic stream and assigned to the turning movements entering and exiting the site.
The primary site-generated trips were added to the Projected Background traffic volumes to
estimate the Buildout Year Total Traffic projections (See Exhibit 7). These projected turning
movement volumes were used in the Intersection Capacity and Tum Lane analyses,
~
Tamiami Cr'oS$tng
9
aOB74_ZTI5.003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 85 of 94
ANALYSES
LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES
The Performance Standard maximum Servicc Flowratcs (SF"ax) for SR 951 were provided by
Collier County Transportation Planning Depmimcnt along with thc Concurrency Segment and
AUJR data. Tables 4 and 5 present the background tramc data and the projected Peak Hour Link
Volumes, based on volumes fi'om the current ConcUlTcncy Segment Table and growth rate
methodology respectively.
Tables 6 and 7 present the illS analyses using the CUlTent Concun'ency Segment Tablc and
growth rate methodologies. The link level of services analyses using the Concurrency Segment
Table projected Background Traffic volumes indicate that background traffic volumes on US 41
from Collier Boulevard to San Marco Road are projected to exceed the SF",ax for those links. The
same segments are projected to be within the SF "'ax using 5-year historical projections. The only
feasible mitigation strategy consists of the widening of US 41 east of Collier Boulevard to four-
lane facility.
SR 951 f!"Om US 41 to the south Wal-Mart access was analyzed with total traffic in the six lane
condition per DCA. This roadway segment is proj ected to operate within SF""". Since no
widening is planed for US 41 from Collier Boulevard to Greenway Road before project bui1doUl,
this link is projccted to continue operating below SF",ax under Total Traffic conditions.
TABLE 6
PM PEAK HOUR LOS LINK ANALYSIS Based on ConcSegmants 06.30.2006
&<gd. S1k Tow( .lliJ_ W1L WlL
J.ink from III llitJk TIiJli lliJIIk. IT""" Sui SML
Collier Blvd (SR 951) Tami'ami TI'an East (US 11) ProJect Acc.ess 2.202 139 2,341 2,370 Y Y
Collier Blvd (SP. 9S I) Proj(lct Access Eagle Creek Dr 2.202 139 2,341 2,370 Y y
Collier Blvd (5R 911) Eagle Creck Dr Manatee Rd 2.202 65 2"2.67 2,370 Y y
Colli" Olvd (SR 951) Manatee Rd FlddlersCrcek Pkwy 1,796 17.0 1,916 2.590 Y Y
Tamlami Trail East (US 41JTI'langle B1VQ ColIJar Blvd (Sf'.. 951) 2.061 103 2,164 3,200 Y y
Tamlami Trail East (US 41) Colllor Blvd (SR. 951) ProlectAccess 1.253 114 1,367 1.075 N N
Tamillmi Tnil East (US 41) Prolect Access Naples Reserve Blvd 1.253 41 1,294 1.075 N N
Tarnlaml Trail Ea~t (US 41) Naples R.eserve Blvd GreC!nwayRd 1.253 25 1,27B 1,075 N N
Tamiami Crossing
10
80874_ZTIS.003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 86 of 94
TABLE 7
2011 PM PEAK HOUR LOS LINK ANALYSIS Ba:>ed on Growth Rate
illsJ:d. Site IIllil1. jJD YilL YilL
Unk Emm I2 ImtIk I!Jp-s Im~ ~M4X Sl<L .5l<L
CollicrOlvd (SR951) Ttlmlami Trail E:lst (US 41) PI'oJec:tAccen: 2,094 139 2.1H 2,370 Y y
Colli., Blvd (SR951) ProjllctAccess Eagle Creek Dr 2,094 139 2,233 2,370 Y y
Collier Blvd (SR 95'l Eagle Creek Dr ManateeRd 2,094 65 2.159 2,370 Y Y
Collier' Blvd (Sf'.. 95 I) Mana.tee I\.d Fiddlers Creok PKw)' 1.709 120 1,829 2,590 Y Y
Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Triangle Blvd C<lUler m...d (SR 9S I) 1.665 103 1,768 ],200 Y Y
TamiamiTrall East (US 4f)Collier Blvd (SR 951) ProJeuAccess 831 II. 951 1,075 Y Y
Tamiami Trnll East (US 41) Pro!QctAccess Naples Reservo Blvd 831 41 878 1,075 Y Y
Tamiami Trail t:asL (US 41) Naples Reserve Blvd Greenway Rd 837 25 862 1,075 Y Y
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the studied intersections using SYNCHRO'"
6.0 capacity analysis software. Signal timings and approach speeds consistent with Collier
County standards were used. Analyses were completed for PM Peak Hour, both with and
without the project. Table 8 summarizes the analytical results and Appendix contains printouts
ofthe analyses.
The existing unsignalized side street approaches on SR 951 & Eagle Creek Drive intersection is
projectcd to exhibit high computed delays. This is not unexpected, given the projected traffic
volumes on SR 951 traversing the intersection. The only feasible mitigative measure would
require sigrralizing the intersection.
/~
Tamlami Crossing
II
80B74_ZTIS.003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 87 of 94
TABLE 8
Total Traffic (6
Background Traffic Total Traffic Lane Divided on SR
951fCR 951)
Intersection Delay Delay LOS Delay
LOS LOS
sedven. swve", seciveh.
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) & C+ 29.7
C 33.2 0 35.7
T amlaml Trail East (US 4 I)
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & F#* 0#*
NIA 99.7 26,2
North Access.
Collier Boulev.rd (SR 951) & 0* D* 33,9 A#* nfa
27.8
Eagle Creok Drive
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & 37 24.6
C 21 0 C+
Wal~Mart (South Access)
Collier Boulevard (5R 951) & C C+ 26.6
C 22,5 26,6
M.natee Road
ColHer Boulevard (SR 95 I) & 64.5 E 73.6 E 73.6
E
Fiddlers Creek Parkway
Tamiaml Trail East (US 41) & 38.2
D 35.3 D 38,2 0+
Triangle Boulevard
Taml.mi. Tr.il East (US 41) & NfA C* 16.2 C' 16.2
West Access
T.miaml Trail East (US 41) & F*
E* 21.3 198.7 B 14.9
East Access
'" Denotes uRsignatized intersectlon.
+ Six Lann Divided
# Denotes right tn/rIght out
The total traffic conditions analytical results included six-Ianing on SR 951 from US 41 to the
Wal-Malt South Access, This widening would increase not only the road capacity from 1,970 to
2,370 vph, but would also improve the intersection capacity, thereby reducing the congestion and
delay.
Closer examination of the intcrsection capacity analyses found that the northbound left-turning
traffic volumes at the US 41 & East Access intersection were projected to exhibit poor service
levels (LOS F) under total traffic conditions, This is typical for unsignalized side-street STOP-
controlled intersections having relatively high main street through volumes and side-street left
turning volumes.
Tamiami Crossing
12
80674_ZTIS-003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 88 of 94
levels (LOS F) under total traffic conditiollS. This is typical for unsignalized side-street STOp.
controlled intersections having relatively high main street through volumes and side-street left
turning volumes.
Under total traffic condition westbound left turning traffic volume is high enough (129 vph
during PM) to warrant a westbound exclusive left turn lane on US 41. The northbound left
turning traffic volume is also high (75 vph during PM) on the East Access. Signalizing this
inlersection, should it meet applicable warrants, is recommended. Signalization could decrease
the computed delays at this intersection to allow operational efficiency to increase from LOS F
to LOS B (14 sec/veh) for the PM peak hour.
SITE ACCESS ANALYSES
Site Access analyses were completed utilizing SYNCHRO<!l software and applied to Build-Ollt
year total traffic. Thc appendix contaius the SYNCHRO@ computer printouts, The purpose of
these analyses is to evaluate the operational characteristics and needs of the site accesses, and to
recommend access point locations.
It was recognized during the study process the need for, and length of needed turn lanes and how
those lengths would interact with neighboring intersections and improvements and their affect on
recommended intersection configurations. Four parameters were used in order to reach the
recommendations: current land uses in the area, traffic volumes, the capacity analysis rcsults, and
the tum lane length of need analysis results.
According to the Collier County Right.of Way Ordinance #2003-37, left and right turn lanes
must be provided at accesses on multilane highways. The FDOT Standard Index 301 and Figurc
3-15 of the Manual ofUnifOlm Minimum StlUldards were used for conceptual geometric design
(see Appendix).
~,
,
FDOT uses the roadway posted speed as the turn lane entry speed. Accol"ding to FDOT Index
301, the deceJerationlane length for a 45 mph posted speed is 350 feet, which is consistent with
a 55 mph design speed. The FDOT Manual on Unifol"m Minimum Standards recommends a 50-
foot minimum storage length for left turn lanes. The turn lanes on Collier Boulevard (SR 951)
north of Eagle Creek and on US 41 should therefore be furnished with 350.foot deceleration
Tamlami Crossing
13
80874_ZTIS-003.cloc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 89 of 94
lanes in addition to the applicable storage lanes. Deceleration lane lengths of need on SR 951
south of Eagle Creek should be 460 feet long.
Long left turn lanes should be used cauliously bccausc of the potential lo increasc left-turn and
rear-end conflicts. Every vehicle which joins the queue is exposed to a higher rear-end conflict
than in a through lane because long left tU11l lanes encourage high approach speeds impacting of
intersection safety.
According to the Plans Preparation Manual (PPM), "computer programs, such as TRANSYT-
7F, are used to develop signal phasing and timing. One of the outputs of these programs is the
queue length. For projects where traffic signal timing is included as a patt of the project, the
output oflhese programs should be considered in determining storage length." SYNCHRO'" was
used to analyze the operational characteristics of the signalized intersection. The PPM does not
specify SYNCHRO@ because that program was not in gencral use when this PPM note was
written; however, it has since been accepted by FDOT for operational and coordinated timing
analyses. Since this program generally computes queue lengths that are consistent with those
resulting from current Highway Capacity Manual procedures, its queue storage output
computations should be considered during the storage length determination process,
SR 951 & Wal-Mart (South Access)
Access Point Location
The access should be located on Collier Boulevard (SR 951), approximately 2,500 feet south of
CoUier Boulevard (CR 951) & US 41 intcrsection centcrline.
Southbound Left Turn Analysis
This project is estimated to generate 148 southbound left turning movemcnts during the PM peak
hour. The total southbound lcft turn movements are 520 vph. Bascd on this information, a dual
southbound left tUl11 lane will be wammted at the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) and Wal-Mart
(South Access) intersection. The computed 95th-percentile queue length was 277 feet. If the PPM
queue computation was used, the turn lane of need would be 433 feet long. This dual turn lane
should be 800 feet long (450 fool storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with taper). Sufficient
T amiaml Crossing
14
BOB74_ZTIS.OO3.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 90 of 94
longitudinal space should be available for the southbound Icft turn lane in order to avoid
restricted length.
Nprthbound Bight Turn Analysis
This projcct is estimated to generate 0 northbound right turning movcmcnts during the PM pcak
hour, The total n01ihbollnd right tum movements arc 348 vph. Bascd on this information, a
northbound right tUlll lane will be warranted at the Collicr Boulevard (SR 951) & Eagle Creek
Drive Access. The computed 95th-percentile queue Icngth was 90 feet. If the PPM queue
computation was used, the turn lane of need would be 580 feet long. Consideration of allowing
stomge reduction is merited because right turn lancs are generally made more efficiently than left
tum lanes.
A northbound right turn lane is therefore warranted at the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) and Wal-
Mart South Access intersectloll. This proposed right turn lane should be 450 fcot long (100 foot
storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with 50-foot taper). Sufficicnt longitudinal spacc is available
for thc northbound right turn lanc.
Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis (Westbound Approach)
This project is cstimated to generate 198 westbound left turning movements during the PM peak
hour. The total westbound left turn movements are 525 vph, The computed 95th-percentile queue
length was 284 feet. The westbound access lane coufiguration consists of an exclusive dual
westbound left turn lane, exclusive right turn lane. At least 300 feet of storage should be
provided before the first sidc street access opcning, in ordcr to avoid queue blockage.
SR 951 & North Access
Access Point Location
The access should bc located on Collier Boulevard (SR 951), approximately 910 feet south of
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) & US 41 intersection centerline. The north access is proposed to be
an unsignalizecl Right In/Right Out (RI/RO) access.
-
T amlaml Crossing
15
80874_ZTIS-l103.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 91 of 94
Northbound Right Turn Anilly~
This project is estimated to generate 108 northbound right tuming movements during the PM
peak hour, Based on this information, a northbound right tUl11 lane wilt be warranted at the
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & North Access. The computed 95th-percentile queue length was 0
foot. If the PPM qucue computation was used, the turn lane of need would be 180 feet long.
Consideration of allowing storage reduction is merited because right turn lanes are generally
made more efficiently than left turn lanes.
A northbound right turn lane is therefore warranted at SR 951 and North Access, This turn lane
should be 400 feet long (50 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with taper). Sufficient
longitudinal space is available for the nOlthbound right turn lane.
Access Drive Lane Configuration Analy~is (Westbound Approach)
This proj ect is estimated to generate 182 westbound right turning movcolCnts during the PM
peak hour. The computed 95th-percentile queue length was 78 feet. The westbound access lane
configuration consists of an exclusive right turn lane. At least 100 feet of storage should be
provided before the first side street access opening, in order to prevent queue blockage,
US 41 & West Access
Access Point Location
The access should be located on US 41 approximately 1,480 feet east of Collier Boulevard (SR
951) & US 41 intersection centerline. The west access is pl'Oposed to be an unsignalized Right
In/Right Out (RI/RO) acccss.
Eastbound Right Turn Analysis
This project is estimated to generate 139 eastbound right tuming movements during the PM peak
hour. This exceeds the 40 vph threshold value. Based on this infonnation, a nOlthboulld right
tum lane will be walTanted at the US 41 & West Access. The computed 95'h-percentile queue
length was 0 foot. If the PPM queue computation was used, the tUlTI lane of need would be 232
feet long. Consideration of allowing storage reduction is merited because right turn lanes are
generally made more efficiently than left tUn! lanes.
T<\mlami CrossIng
16
80874_ZTIS.003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 92 of 94
An eastbound right turn lane is therefore warranted at US 41 and West Access. This turn lane
should be 400 feet long (50 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration latle with taper).
AccessDl'ive Lane Confi~uration Analvsls (Northboul)d Approach)
This project is estimated to generate 53 nOlthbound right turning movements during the PM peak
hour. The computed 95th-percentile q\leue length was 13 feet. The northbound access lane
configuration consists of an exclusive right tw'n lane. At least 50 feet of storage should be
provided before the first side street access opening, in order to prevent queue blockage.
US 41 & East Access
Access Point Location
The access should be located on US 41 approximately 3,310 feet east of Collier Boulcvard (SR
951) & US 41 intersection centerline. The east access is proposed to be a signalized full-
movemcnt access intersection.
Westbound Left Turn Analysis
This proj ect is estimated to generate 86 westhound left tuming movements dUling the PM peak
hour. The total westbound left turn movements are 129 vph. Based on this information, a
westbound left turn lane will be warranted at the US 41 & East Access. The computed 95th_
percentile queue length was 160 feet. The PPM formula results in 2l5-foot queue length
computation. This tum lane should be 575 feet long (225 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration
lane with taper). Sufficient longitudinal space should be available for the westbound left turn
lane in order not to affect the bridge at Henderson Creek.
Eastbound Right Turn Analysis
,---
This project is estimated to generate 12 eastbound right turning movements during the PM peak
hour. The total eastbound right turn movements are 32 vph. Based on this information, an
eastbound right turn lanc will be warranted at the US 41 & East Access. The computed 95111_
percentile queue lengUl was 15 feet. If the PPM queue computation was used, the turn lane of
need would be 53 feet long. Consideration of allowing storage reduction is merited because right
tum lanes are generally made more efficiently thallleft turn lanes.
Tamiaml CrOSSIng
17
B0874_ZTIS-003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 93 of 94
An eastbound right tulU lane is therefore warranted at the US 41 and West Access intersection,
This turn lanc should be 400 feet long (50 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with taper).
Access Drive Lane Confi~uration Analysis {Northbound Approaci1}
This project is estimated to generate 62 northbound left turning movements during tile PM peak
hour. The computed 95th-percentile queue length was 105 feet. The northbound access lane
configuration consists of exclusive northbound left and right tulU lanes, At least 125 feet of
storage should be provided before the first side street access opening, in order to prevent queue
blockage.
PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSES
Preliminary traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted on the US 41 & East Access
intersection. Wal1'al1t 3 (Peak Hour Volume) of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) was used for this evaluation, The preliminary warrant analyses suggest that the
intersection may meet traffic signal warrants during the PM peak hour. Comprehensivc projected
traffic signal warrant analyses should bc performed at the SDP stage.
IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS
Because many of the analyses wcre addressed in previous sections, this improvement analysis
section will be limited to a conclusive nanative.
As shown in Table 5, the link level of selvice analyses indicate that US 41 from Collier
Boulevard (SR 951) to San Marco Road is projected to operate in excess of the performance
standard maximum service flowrates (SF",.,) under Background Traffic conditions. The only
feasible mitigation strategy consists of widening US 41 east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951) to a
four lane facility.
SR 951 from US 41 to the Wal.Mart South Access intersectiOlI was analyzed as a six-lane
facility under Total Traffic conditions. This roadway segment is projected to operate within
SF",.x as a six-lane facility. US 41 from Collier Boulevard (CR 95l) to Greenway Road is
projected to operate in excess of SF","x under background and total traffic conditions, because no
widening was considered ill this analysis.
Tamlaml Crossing
18
80B74_ZTIS-003.doc
Agenda Item No. 8B
June 10, 2008
Page 94 of 94
The following intersection improvements were identified as being needed in order to
accommodate projected total traffic:
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & Wal-Mart South Access:
. Full-movement signalized intersection
. 800-foot southbound dual left turn lane
. 450-foot northbound exclusive right turn iane
. 300-foot westbound duai left turn iane.
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & North Access:
. Right in/Right Out unsignallzed Intersection
. 400-foot northbound exclusive right turn iane
. I OO-foot westbound right turn lane
US 41 & West Access:
. Right InlRight Out unsignalized intersection
. 400-foot eastbound right turn lane
. 50-foot northbound exclusive right turn lane
US 41 & East Access:
. Full-movement signalized intersection
. 400-foot eastbound right turn lane
. 575-foot westbound left turn lane
. I 25.foot northbound exclusive left turn lane
The developer proposcs to pay the appropriate Collier County Road ImpllCt Fees as building
pelmits are issued for the proposed project.
.-----
Tamlami Crossing
19
80874_ ZTIS.003.doc