Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 11/12/2019 Item # 9B (Courthouse Shadows PUD)
11/12/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-08, as amended, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development by adding 300 multi-family rental dwelling units as a permitted use in addition to the commercial development; by adding development standards for residential only buildings; by adding deviations related to the residential uses; by revising development commitments and by revising the master plan. The property is located on the south side of US 41 and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sect ions 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 20.35+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (This is a companion to agenda item 9.A) OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff’s findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above-referenced petition, render a decision regarding this Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment petition, and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property consists of 20.35 acres and is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling and Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) in Section 11, 12, 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. The petitioner is requesting to amend Ordinance Number 1992-008 and 2016-45, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant proposes to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. A companion small-scale amendment, PL20180003659 to address density has been filed as well. The applicant intends to ensure that property owners, not included in the current application submittal, retain all existing development entitlements. The Courthouse Shadows Commercial PUD and was established by Ordinance 1992 -008. The PUD was later amended by Ordinance 2016-45 as part of the proposed Sam’s Club development project. The applicant proposes to maintain the commercial options available in Ordinance 2016 -45 for a large retail warehouse club space. The applicant proposes a mixed-use option to allow up to 300 multiple-family dwelling units on the 10- acre GMPA portion of the property, which is approximately the current parking lot area. The applicant states that the 300 dwelling units proposed are market-rate units. The proposed master plan indicates that multiple-family development would be gated and apart from the commercial uses of the PUD. Interconnections are proposed to the out lot commercial uses along the East Trail (U.S. 41). The applicant proposes to utilize Haldeman Creek to a greater extent and develop a kayak launch as part of the residential component. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as needed to maintain an adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the 9.B Packet Pg. 58 11/12/2019 criteria used by staff and the CCPC to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Courthouse Shadows PUD amendment petition is contingent upon approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1. The subject property is currently designated Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC) Subdistrict and is also considered within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict for purposes of calculating eligible density. The property also lies within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay (CHHA). The B/GTRO encourages development and redevelopment. The prior zoning of the Botanical Gardens PUD site would have all owed 388 dwelling units. Those [unused] units were placed into a density pool that may be allocated by the Board of County Commissioners on a project by project basis, either for a mixed -use project or a residential-only project. The subject petition relies upon this density pool, in part, to achieve the requested density of 14.74 DU/A (300 DUs). Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport -Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential-only project at a maximum density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11 except that no project may utilize more than 97 units - 25% of the 388 total density pool units available. [The subject site has frontage on US 41 East; this petition proposes a density <8 DU/A (7.77) requesting the use of 97 units from the bonus pool.] The 97-unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. For density bonuses, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. [The current underlying (Courthouse Shadows PUD) zoning lacks a residential component. This amendment introduces a residential component, and the site will yield 75 DUs (4 DU/A x 18.8 acres). Within this area is the 10-acre residential (sub)component (subject of companion GMPA) that will yield 128 DUs (12.8 DU/A x 10 acres). Combined, this yields 203 DUs. This petition’s proposed 300 DUs total (14.74 DU/A) less the eligible density of 203 DUs yields a request for 97 DUs from the density bonus pool.] This petition relies, in large part, on a companion small-scale GMP amendment to FLUM Inset Map (MUAC #16) to achieve density consistency. That amendment [ref. PL180003659/CPSS-2019-1] depicts an area of ten (10) acres within Activity Center #16 to coincide with the residential component of Courthouse Shadows PUD, as also depicted on this Mixed-Use Option Master Plan. CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, this proposed PUDA may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE. However, the petition may be deemed consistent if and when the companion small -scale GMP amendment petition (PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1) is adopted and goes into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date consistent with the effective date of the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition. Stipulations: 1. This petition may only be deemed consistent with the FLUE if the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition (PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1) is adopted and goes into effect. 2. The PUDA Ordinance needs to provide for an effective date to be linked to the effec tive date of the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition. 9.B Packet Pg. 59 11/12/2019 3. The PUDA Ordinance needs to provide a Planning Commitment stating, to the effect, “A maximum of ninety-seven (97) density bonus pool units, as provided by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, are available for this RPUD for a period of seven (7) years from the date of approval of this PUDA. If, after seven (7) years, any of the bonus units have not been utilized, the bonus units shall expire and not be available unless authorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard petition PUDA-PL20180003658 and the companion GMPA PL20180003659 on September 19, 2019, and there was a motion to approve the GMPA PL20170003659. The motion passed by a vote of 6 - 0. There was a motion to approve petition PUDA-PL20180003658. The motion passed 5-1 with Homiak voting against. She explained that her dissenting vote was against the height and she was opposed to the use as multiple-family residential. Commissioner Fry voted for the motion but expressed a desire to see affordable housing and studio apartments less than 500 square feet in Collier County. The motion to approve PUDA PL20170003658 included the following stipulations: 1. No residential structures are permitted in the CR tracts along US 41. 2. Only non-motorized watercraft are permitted on Haldeman Creek. 3. Maximum height not to exceed 4-stories. 4. Specific definitions for active and passive recreation. 5. No rooftop recreation is permitted. 6. If the residential option is used, maximum commercial square footage is 65,000 s.f. 7. Existing perimeter vegetation and trees along Peters Avenue will be retained except for exotics and supplement to a Type D buffer. 8. Deviation 12 shall include the residential or commercial option. 9. Deviation 14 is eliminated. 10. For the three northeast located buildings, the zoned height is 55 feet and the actual height is 65 feet. For the two south located buildings, the zoned height is 50 feet and the actual height is 60 feet. Add a height exhibit. 11. School buses are permitted to use the internal road. 12. We-work spaces are for residents only. 13. Lighting height maximum is 15 feet with full shielding from the external residential property line and maximum 0.2 foot-candles at the property line. 14. The residential area shall be gated. 15. Revise the master plan to show the fence locations. 16. Approve staff conditions 2, 3 and 4. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to the existing Courthouse Shadows PUD (Ordinance No.92-08, as amended). The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria. Criteria for PUD Amendments 9.B Packet Pg. 60 11/12/2019 Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing 9.B Packet Pg. 61 11/12/2019 conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot (“reasonably”) be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a “core” question…) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.II], as amended. 9.B Packet Pg. 62 11/12/2019 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the Board hearing as these items relate to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Division Staff recommends approval and agrees with the CCPC recommendation of approval with conditions, which are reflected in the attached Ordinance and PUD document for Courthouse Shadows. Prepared by: C. James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (PDF) 2. Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (PDF) 3. Attachment B Master Plan (PDF) 4. Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (PDF) 5. Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (PDF) 6. Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (PDF) 7. [Linked] Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (PDF) 8. Legal Ad - Agenda ID 10195 (PDF) 9.B Packet Pg. 63 11/12/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.B Doc ID: 10645 Item Summary: ***This item was continued from the October 22, 2019 BCC Meeting.*** This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-08, as amended, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development by adding 300 multi -family rental dwelling units as a permitted use in addition to the commercial development; by adding development standards for residential only buildings; by adding deviations related to the residential uses; by revising development commitments and by revising the master plan. The property is located on the south side of US 41 and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 20.35+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (This is a companion to agenda item 9.A) Meeting Date: 11/12/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: James Sabo 10/23/2019 8:44 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 10/23/2019 8:44 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 10/23/2019 9:40 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 10/23/2019 9:42 AM Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 10/23/2019 4:01 PM Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 10/28/2019 10:14 AM County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 10/28/2019 4:52 PM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 10/29/2019 8:38 AM Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 10/29/2019 8:41 AM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 10/29/2019 4:04 PM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 11/03/2019 10:32 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 11/12/2019 9:00 AM 9.B Packet Pg. 64 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.39.B.1Packet Pg. 65Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 9.B.1Packet Pg. 67Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 68Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 69Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 70Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 71Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 72Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 73Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 74Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 75Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 76Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 77Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 78Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 79Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 80Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 81Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 82Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 83Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 84Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.1Packet Pg. 85Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 1 of 16 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PREPARED BY: COLLIER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 3003 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 33940 AMENDED BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 VIA DEL REY, BONITA SPRING, FL 34134 AND COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUITE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC 1/28/92 ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-8 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 2016-45 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 2 of 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii3 STATEMENT OF INTENT iii4 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 1-15 SECTION II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2-17 SECTION III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 3-112 EXHIBIT – “A” MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT – “B” LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT – “C” DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT – “D” BUILDING SIGNAGE EXHIBIT – “E” RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT EXHIBIT 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 3 of 16 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this Section is to express the interest of KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC to develop 20.3± acres of land located in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The development of this land as a Planned Unit of Development will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The project development will be consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations of the Growth Management Plan Land Use Element and other applicable documents for the following reasons: 1. The project development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding and future land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 2. All improvements will be in compliance with all applicable development regulations as set forth in the Land Development Code. 3. The project development will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.H and L of the Future Land Use Element. 4. The project development may be used more efficiently and made more desirable resulting in smaller network of utilities and streets with consequent lower construction and future maintenance costs than the conventional current zoning. 5. The project development will permit flexibility which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations and in siting, land usage, and varied building units than the conventional current zoning. 6. The project development has met all the evaluation criteria required for the PUD in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The project will not adversely affect any adopted level of service standard of the County’s Growth Management Plan. Therefore, it is consistent with the County’s Growth Management Plan. 7. The project is located in an Activity Center Subdistrict as designated in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan for Collier County. The FLUE states that Activity Centers are the preferred location for the concentration of commercial and mixed use development activities. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 4 of 16 STATEMENT OF INTENT The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of the developer to commence development of a commercial mixed-use activity center planned unit of development. It is the intent of the developer to continue the development of architecturally unified commercial establishments built on the project site and on the concept of planned arrangement and unified management control. The unified development approval under the PUD district designation will ensure that the project is aesthetically pleasing and functionally efficient. It will allow an efficient pattern of internal circulation to be established, and limited points of vehicular ingress and egress. These functional and aesthetic advantages, which cannot be provided in the conventional strip commercial development configurations, have been maximized and shall be sustained in the approval of this planned unit of development. This planned unit of development shall be limited to specific commercial and residential uses, which are compatible with uses permitted within activity centers. It is the interest of the developer to continue development in accordance with the regulations of this Planned Unit of Development. It is the purpose of this document to set forth the complete plan, regulations and conditions of development along with other information required in accordance with the PUD ordinance. It is further the intent of the developer to commence development once all necessary permits and approvals have been granted. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 5 of 16 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of Courthouse Shadows. 1.2 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the control of KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100, Indianapolis, IN 46204. 1.3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Exhibit “B”, Legal Description. 1.4 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project is located on the north side of Haldeman Creek and the west side of US 41. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 6 of 16 SECTION II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for development of the proposed 20.3± acre Planned Unit Development identified on the Master Plan. 2.2 PROJECT PLAN The project plan including street layout is illustrated in the Master Plan as shown at on Exhibit “A”. 2.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Antique Shops 2. Appliance stores 3. Art studios 4. Art supplies 5. Automobile parts stores 6. Automobile service stations, including facilities with fuel pumps. 7. Bakery shops (including baking incidental to retail or wholesale sales) 8. Banks (branch or main office) and financial institutions 9. Barber and beauty shops 10. Bath supply stores 11. Blueprint shops 12. Bicycle sales and services 13. Book stores 14. Carpet and floor covering sales (including storage and installation) 15. Child care centers 16. Cocktail lounges, commercial recreation (indoor) 17. Clothing stores 18. Commercial schools 19. Confectionery and candy stores 20. Delicatessen; drive-in restaurants, drug stores; dry cleaning shops; dry goods stores and department stores. 21. Dwelling units, Multi-family rentals (Permitted in areas designated as “R” on the Master Plan. See Section 2.6 of this PUD for residential development standards and Section 3.2) 21.22. Electric supply stores 22.23. Fish stores; florist shops; food markets (including facilities with fuel pumps); furniture stores; furrier shops and fast food restaurants. 23.24. Gift shops, gourmet shops 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 7 of 16 24.25. Hardware stores; health food stores; hobby supply stores; home for the aged 25.26. Ice cream stores; ice sales; interior decorating showrooms 26.27. Jewelry stores 27.28. Laundries, leather goods, and luggage stores; locksmiths and liquor stores 28.29. Meat market; medical office or clinic for human care; millinery shops; motion picture theater; music stores 29.30. Membership warehouse club with associated liquor store use and ancillary facility with fuel pumps. The facility with fuel pumps may not be open to the general public and shall be for only members of the membership warehouse club. 3031. Office (retail or professional); office supply stores 3132. Paint and wallpaper stores; pet shops, pet supply stores; photographic equipment stores; post office 3233. Radio and television sales and service; small appliance stores; shoe sales and repairs; restaurants 3334. Souvenir stores; stationery stores; shopping centers; supermarkets subject to site development plan approval. 3435. Tailor shops; tobacco shops; toy shops; tropical fish stores 3536. Variety stores; veterinary offices and clinics (no outside kenneling) 3637. Watch and precision instrument sales and repair 3738. Any other commercial use of or professional service normally allowed in C-3 Zoning District as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) or the Hearing Examiner. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the uses permitted in this district. 2. Caretaker’s residence 3. Clubhouses, only located within a residential building.” “No stand-alone clubhouse shall be permitted. 4. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. Only non-motorized watercraft are permitted. 5. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the BZA or the Hearing Examiner. 2.4 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS (FOR COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE) A. From property boundary line abutting U.S. 41 right-of-way line – 15 feet within which no parking shall be allowed nor any merchandise displayed. B. From western property boundary line abutting Peters Avenue right-of-way line – 25 feet. C. From abutting residential zoned properties and the southern property boundary line – 50 feet. D. From property boundary line other than A, B, or C above – 10 feet. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 8 of 16 E. Minimum distance between principal structures – none or 15 feet. F. Minimum internal setback from the additional 0.28± acre FDOT surplus parcel shall be zero (0) feet. 2.5 MAXIMUM HEIGHT (FOR COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE BUILDINGS) Thirty-five feet (35’) 2.6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ONLY) A maximum of 300 multi-family residential dwelling units shall be permitted in areas identified as “R” on the Master Plan. Residential buildings are eligible to be developed utilizing the architectural standards of the Bayshore/Gateway Zoning Overlay Standards, and only those listed in Planning Commitment #1 in Section 3.11 of this PUD. STANDARDS MULTI-FAMILY (1) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES Minimum Floor Area (per unit) 700 S.F. Minimum Lot Area 10,000 S.F. Minimum Lot Width N/A Minimum Lot Depth N/A Maximum Height (not to exceed 4 stories) Zoned Actual See Exhibit E, Residential Building Height Exhibit MINIMUM SETBACKS From Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) 140 feet From Peter’s Avenue 70 feet From Collee Court 50 feet From all other PUD Perimeter Boundaries 20 feet From Haldeman Creek Easement 25 feet From Preserve 25 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 25 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (2) Maximum Height Zoned Actual Zoned (Detached Garage) Actual (Detached Garage) 35 feet 40 feet 15 feet 18 feet MINIMUM SETBACKS From Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) 15 feet From Peter’s Avenue 15 feet From Collee Court 40 feet 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 9 of 16 From all other PUD Perimeter Boundaries 10 feet From PUD Perimeter Boundaries (Passive Recreation Areas)(4) 25 feet From PUD Perimeter Boundaries (Active Recreation Areas)(3) 50 feet From Haldeman Creek Easement 0 feet From Preserve 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 15 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures (Detached Garage) 10 feet (1) If a clubhouse is located within a Residential Structure, shall follow the development regulations for Multi-Family. There shall be no rooftop recreation. (2) Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, fences, walls, columns, decorative hardscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project’s entrance features are permitted within the residential areas abutting the project’s entrance, or within the private roadway as depicted on the PUD Master Plan, and shall have no required setbacks ; however, such structures cannot be located where they create vehicular stacking or sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians. (3) For purposes of this PUD, active recreation shall include swimming pools, outdoor courts, tot lot and similar activities and structures. (4) For purposes of this PUD, passive recreation areas shall include trails, picnic areas, benches, barbeque grills, yoga area, dog park areas and similar activities or structures. Note: Nothing in this RPUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. 2.67 MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS As required in Section 2.3.12 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.78 USABLE OPEN SPACE At least 30% of the gross acreage of the total site will be devoted to usable open space when fully developed. These open spaces include perimeter landscape buffers, planting islands in parking lots and other vehicular use areas, and the landscaped areas on the perimeter of the building. 2.89 SIGNS A. Individual Business Signs: Wall, marquee, or hanging signs below the canopy of the primary retail building, with an area not more than twenty percent (20%) of the total square footage of the front wall or facade area under the canopy, per rental unit, consistent with the locations shown on Exhibit D - Building Signage. B. Individual Business Signs: Two wall or marquee signs per out parcel with an area not to exceed 20% of the total square footage of the wall to which it shall be affixed, with a maximum of 250 square feet per sign, or one wall/marquee sign and one free-standing, on-premise sign per out parcel not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet maximum. Maximum height, twenty-five feet (25’) for free-standing signs. C. Project Identification Signs: 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 10 of 16 Two project identification signs, each not to exceed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet and one project identification sign at each major entrance to the shopping center not to exceed one hundred and fifty (150) square feet per entrance. Maximum height, twenty-five feet (25’). D. Individual Business Signs: Additional guidelines which are more stringent than those contained in the Land Development Code in effect at the time of application for a building permit may be established by the developer to ensure maximum consistency and continuity in the design and location of signs. 2.910 MINIMUM LANDSCAPING A. For commercial only: Aas required by the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of application for building permits. To serve as a visual buffer, the project sponsor will landscape in conjunction with a six foot (6’) high chain link fence. Beginning at the south driveway on Peters Avenue, the fence will be located along the property boundary line and run southward to the point of intersection with the northern line of Haldeman Creek drainage easement. For the residential properties to the south, a gate for pedestrian access will be provided by the developer. A landscape buffer in accordance with Division 2.4 of the Land Development Code will be provided beginning along the west project boundary commencing at the south driveway on Peters Avenue and continue southward to the point of intersection with the northern line of Haldeman Creek drainage easement which is adjacent to or across from residentially zoned property. It is the developer’s intention to provide additional landscaping beyond the landscape buffer requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to create an outstanding shopping environment. B. For Residential only, the front fence along 41 and the CR tracts shall be decorative, but not a solid wall. Decorative fence shall be located around the perimeter and shown along Peters Ave and Collee Court. 2.101 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section 2.7.3.5.1, Division 2.7, Article 2 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.112 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL The provisions of Article 3, Division 3.3. of the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply to the development of platted tracts or parcels of land as provided in said Article 3, Division 3.3. prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 11 of 16 SECTION III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for the development of the project. 3.2 PUD MASTER PLAN A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan as prepared by J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A., Exhibit “A” Master Plan. The maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels, shall not exceed a total of 165,000 square feet of commercial floor area and a maximum of 300 multi-family residential dwelling units. The uses are subject to the trip cap identified in Section 3.6.E. If multi-family rental units are developed, the maximum commercial square footage is limited to 65,000 square feet. B. The design criteria and layout illustrated in the Master Development Plans and the architectural elevations and cross-sections which accompany this submission shall be interpreted as preliminary and understood to be flexible so that the final design may best satisfy the project and comply with all applicable requirements. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to Staff approval. C. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. D. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structure, locations of all improved facilities, and location and treatment of buffer areas. 3.3 UTILITIES A. A central water supply system shall be made available to all areas of the project. The water supply source for the project shall be the City of Naples system. B. All areas of the project shall be served by a central wastewater collection system. The project sponsor agrees to dedicate collection lines and transmission facilities to the County Water-Sewer District upon completion and prior to activation. C. The petitioner shall submit the data required under County Ordinance No. 80-112 showing the availability of sewage service. This must be submitted and approved by the Utilities Division prior to approval of the construction documents for the project. in addition, the petitioner shall submit a copy of the approved DER permits for the sewage collection and transmission systems to be utilized, upon receipt thereof. D. Central water distribution and sewage collection and transmission systems will be constructed throughout the project development by the developer pursuant to all current requirements of Collier County and the State of Florida. These water and sewer facilities will be constructed within easements to be dedicated to the County for utility 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 12 of 16 purposes or within platted rights-of-way. Upon completion of construction of these water and sewer facilities within the project, the facilities will be tested to insure they meet Collier County’s minimum requirements at which time they will be dedicated to the County pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time dedication is requested, prior to being placed into service. E. All construction plans and technical specifications and proposed plats, if applicable, for the proposed water distribution and sewage collection and transmission facilities must be reviewed and approved by the Utilities Division prior to commencement of construction. F. All customers connecting to the water distribution facilities will be customers of the City of Naples. All customers connecting to the sewage collection facilities will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with a rate structure and service agreement approved by the County. Review of the proposed rates and subsequent approval by the Board of Count y Commissioners must be completed prior to activation of the water and sewer facilities servicing the project. G. Telephone, power, and T.V. cable service shall be made available to the building units. All such utility lines shall be installed underground. H. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect neighboring residential properties from direct glare. Downstream wastewater system capacity is available for a Commercial only project. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) review for a Mixed-Use Site Plan. The capacity for a Mixed-Use Site Plan will be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s wastewater collection/transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve a Multi-Use site plan will be the responsibility of the developer to design, permit, and construct and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance. 3.4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Such arrangements and agreements as necessary shall be made with an approved solid waste disposal service to provide for solid waste collection service to all areas of the project. 3.5 WATER MANAGEMENT A. An Adequate access easement shall be provided for access through the shopping center to Haldeman Creek. B. Petitioner shall obtain a right-of-way permit for all construction within the Haldeman Creek Easement. C. For purposes of stormwater management, the proposed redevelopment project shall be treated as a new development project; therefore, it will comply with the existing 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 13 of 16 offsite allowable discharge rates and retention / detention criteria, as the date of this PUD amendment approval. 3.6 TRAFFIC A. The applicant is advised that future development activities are subject to land use controls consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as amended. Such controls may, from time to time, preclude the applicant’s ability to initiate, continue and/or to complete the project improvements as presently scheduled. B. The owner, its successors, or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five foot sidewalk along Peter's Avenue up to the sum of $ 50,000.00, which shall represent its payment in-lieu consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02 for the entire site. Owner shall make payment to County within 30 days of approval of the Site Development Plan for the redevelopment. C. Upon redevelopment of the site with a single large format retail user such as Sam’s Club, the owner shall close the southernmost vehicular access to Peters Avenue. The project shall be permitted to have an emergency vehicle only entrance as shown on the Master Plan. D. The proposed new-revised parking island layout and building configuration shown on the master plan are conceptual and is not part of this zoning petition approval. Review and approval of any proposed site changes including but not limited to access entries, parking islands, and drive aisles shall be done at time of site development order (SDP/SDPA) E. The development is limited to the 662 total net new PM peak hour trips utilized in the Traffic Impact Statement dated March 18, 2016 based on a maximum development of 165,000 square feet of commercial. 3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Native species shall be utilized, where available, to the maximum extent possible in the site landscaping design. The goal of site landscaping shall be in the recreation of native vegetation and habitat characteristics lost on the site during construction or due to past activities. B. All exotic plants, as defined in the County Code, shall be removed during each phase of construction from development areas, open space areas, and preserve areas. Following site development, a maintenance program shall be implemented to prevent reinvasion of the site by such exotic species. This plan, which will describe control techniques and inspection intervals, shall be filed with and approved by the Collier County Project Review Services. C. If during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other constructional activities, an archaeological or historical site, artifact, or other indicator is discovered, all development at that location shall be immediately stopped and Collier County Project Review Services notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the Collier County Project Review Services or a designated consultant 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 14 of 16 to assess the find and determine the proper course of action in regard to this salvageability. The Collier County Project Review Services will respond to any such notification in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide only a minimal interruption to any constructional activities. D. The developer will work with the County Environmentalist on specific site design in the phase two area. E. Tree removal applications and protection plans have not been reviewed as part of this PUD ordinance. The developer shall comply with all Collier County Ordinances relating to the protection and preservation of trees. F. To maintain existing native vegetation (i.e. remnant mesic hammock area) within the proposed development, no more parking spaces shall be permitted than that shown in an updated cross parking easement and as recorded in public records. G.F. The petitioner shall comply with all environmental ordinances and land development codes in effect at the time of final development order approval(s). H.G. Native vegetation shall be retained or replanted in accordance with SDP 98-75. As an alternative, the developer may also elect to provide offsite preservation of native vegetation in accordance with the LDC. H. Existing trees along Peters Ave will be retained in the PUD except for exotics and supplemented to achieve the required landscape buffer. 3.8 ENGINEERING A. The developer and all subsequent land owners are hereby placed on notice that they are required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This includes, but is not limited to, Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result in the issuance of a final or final local development order. 3.9 FIRE A. Provide For a commercial only project, provide a fire lane along the front of the proposed retail shops marked by signs placed at 30 ft. intervals and readable from both directions of travel specifically reading “Fire Lane – No Stopping, Standing or Parking”. NFPA 1:3-1.1.10 B. PFor a commercial only project provide additional fire hydrants so that no portion of the structure is greater than 300 feet from a hydrant. NFPA 1141:3-6.3 3.10 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT A. Prior to the first residential certificate of occupancy, the developer shall provide to Collier County Emergency Management, with no cost to the County, up to 150 general purpose cots at an estimated total cost not to exceed $8,400.00. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 15 of 16 B. Prior to the 100th residential certificate of occupancy, the developer shall provide Collier County Emergency Management, with no cost to the County, up to 24 special needs cots at an estimated total cost not to exceed $2,900.00. 3.11 PLANNING A. Should the Developer elect to construct Residential dwelling units within the MPUD, the residential buildings shall be subject to the following provisions of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Overlay provisions of the LDC: 1. Section 4.02.16.D.6.d. (Apartment buildings Massing and Scale) 2. Section 4.02.16.E.2.a.ii. (Shared 10’ Type A Buffer adjacent to non-residential properties) (only applicable to the existing commercially zoned property located outside of the PUD with frontage on Peters Street) 3. Section 4.02.16.E.5. (Water Management can be located in buffers) 4. Section 4.02.16.F. Table 1 (Parking) B. The owners, KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC and KRG Courthouse Shadows II, LLC, their successors and assigns, will permit Collier County Public School District buses to utilize the property for a school bus stop. C. Common work spaces provided in the residential structures shall be for residential use only and are not open to the public. D. Parking lot lighting in areas where noted on the Master Plan shall be a maximum of 15 feet in height and shall be filled with full cut-off fixtures. Such fixtures will be no closer than 120 feet to the property line of developed residential property. E. Only non-motorized vessels will be allowed on Haldeman Creek. F. If residential units are constructed, a fence will be installed in the locations as noted on Exhibit A, Master Plan. G. There will be no residential dwelling units in the C or C/R parcels adjacent to Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41). H. A maximum of ninety-seven (97) density bonus pool units, as provided by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, are available for this RPUD for a period of seven (7) years from the date of approval of this PUDA. If, after seven (7) years, any of the bonus units have n ot been utilized, the bonus units shall expire and not be available unless authorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20180003658 Last Revised 10/04/2019 Page 16 of 16 I. For residential buildings abutting Collee and Peters, the lighting maximum height shall be 15 feet and shielded from off property with no excess bleeding of light greater than 0.2 foot-candles. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) NOTINCLUDEDIN PUDOUTLOT ZONING: C-3 (GTMUD-MXD) LAND USE: OFFICES AND VACANT ZONING: RMF-6 (BMUD-R1) LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: RMF-6 (BMUD-R1) LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: RSF-4 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: C-3 (BMUD-R1) LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: RSF-4 (BMUD-R1) LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: C-3 LAND USE: OFFICES ZONING: C-5 LAND USE: RETAIL (WALMART) ZONING: C-5 LAND USE: RETAIL (WALMART)ZONING: PUD AND C-3 LAND USE: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER AND OFFICESZONING: PUD LAND USE: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER OUTLOT OUTLOT OUTLOT OUTLOT EXISTING 20' WIDE VEGETATIVE BUFFER 20' WIDE 'D' BUFFER GradyMinor Civil Engineers Ɣ Land Surveyors Ɣ Planners Ɣ Landscape Architects CERT. OF AUTH. EB 0005151 CERT. OF AUTH. LB 0005151 BUSINESS LC 26000266 Bonita Springs 239.947.1144 Fort Myers 239.690.4380 www.GradyMinor.com Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. SITE ACREAGE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE = 165,000 OPEN SPACE = 30% DEVIATIONS: # PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "C" OF THE PUD ORDINANCE. 9 4 NOTES: 1.EXISTING NATIVE TREES TO BE RELOCATED OR REPLACED TO MEET LANDSCAPE TREE REQUIREMENT. 2.IF THE SITE IS REDEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE LARGE FORMAT RETAIL USER SUCH AS SAM'S CLUB, THE SOUTHERNMOST ACCESS POINT ON PETERS AVENUE CLOSES. (ALSO REFER TO SECTION 3.6.C OF THE PUD ORDINANCE) LANDSCAPE BUFFER (DEVIATION 9) LANDSCAPE BUFFER (DEVIATION 9) #DEVIATIONS 9 9 EXISTING SIGN TO REMAIN EXISTING SIGN TO REMAIN 2 22 2 6 3 5 1 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 35 5 5 7 7 4 FACILITY WITH FUEL PUMPS ACCESS FOR EASEMENT MAINTENANCE D R A I N A G E E A S E M E N T 10 EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY SEE NOTE #2 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows PUD Exhibit B Legal Description Page 1 of 1 BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, & 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF COURTHOUSE SHADOWS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 PAGES 40-41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID PLAT FOR THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE S 89° 01' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 838.57 FEET; 2. THENCE N 00° 15' 36" W, A DISTANCE OF 276.13 FEET; 3. THENCE N 89° 59' 12" W, A DISTANCE OF 331.40 FEET; 4. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. THENCE S 89° 28' 37" W, A DISTANCE OF 140.47 FEET; 6. THENCE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 757.17 FEET; 7. THENCE N 89° 15' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.91 FEET; 8. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET; 9. THENCE S 89° 13' 43" W, A DISTANCE OF 138.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF PETERS AVENUE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 56 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 116.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3939, PAGE 463 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE N 38° 02' 06" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.66 FEET; 2. THENCE S 82° 55' 44" E, A DISTANCE OF 23.32 FEET; 3. THENCE S 51° 37' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE FOR THE REMAINING COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. S 52° 02' 35" E, A DISTANCE OF 85.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 59' 04", A RADIUS OF 1773.76 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 45° 33' 03" E, 401.11 FEET; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.97 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 2. THENCE S 39° 03' 31" E, A DISTANCE OF 1306.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows MPUD, PL20180003658 Revised 09/24/2019 Page 1 of 3 DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off-street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10’x20’ (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet a shared 15’ landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately owned lotsplatted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5’ wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6’ away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. 6. WITHDRAWN. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with, which permits on-premise directory signs for multi-occupancy parcels with a minimum of 8 independent units containing 20,000 square feet of leasable floor area to allow the existing directory signs to be utilized 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows MPUD, PL20180003658 Revised 09/24/2019 Page 2 of 3 to identify the residential component of the mixed-use PUD and to have fewer than 8 tenants identified on the signage panels and at the existing height of 25’ to remain. 8. WITHDRAWN 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15’ with an average width of 20’ as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. However, tree plantings shall not be placed over or within six feet of any public water, reclaimed water, or sewer utility lines and shall not interfere with any County or state traffic control devices or access to all county or state traffic control equipment and devices and utilities. Whenever plantings obstruct the ingress and/or egress for the purposes of the easement they shall be removed upon request by the City of Naples, county or state, and in the event of failure by the owner to so move them, the city, county or state may do so and the expense of same charged to the property owner. When plantings placed over utility lines cause damage to the utilities systems, the property owner shall bear the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged utilities. 10. WITHDRAWN. 11. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow no buffers on the commercial outparcels adjacent to the internal access road. 12. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow a 5’-wide Type “D” buffer on the property (including the residential or commercial option) located on the south side of the primary access road. 13. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires that Type “D” buffers be located adjacent to any primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow the buffer to be placed a maximum of 25’ from the south side of the primary access road. 14. Deviation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Table 1, Dimensional Requirements in the BMUD -NC, to allow the multi-family residential portion of the PUD to establish their own residential development types and dimensional standards as set forth in this PUD.WITHDRAWN 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Courthouse Shadows MPUD, PL20180003658 Revised 09/24/2019 Page 3 of 3 15. Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G Table 17, Parking Space Requirements – Multi-family Dwellings, which allows parking to be provided at 50 percent of normal requirements, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouse, to instead allow the 50 percent reduction of normal requirements for golf courses/ clubhouse uses. 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Sam’s Club 4708 / PUD Amendment / July 18, 2016 Deviation 4 Exhibit DEVIATION 4 DEVIATION JUSTIFICATION There are existing areas in the shopping center in the northern part of the site that is not being redeveloped at this time where there are currently more than ten parking spaces in a row without a landscap- ing island. The development is requesting to leave those areas as is if there are no impacts planned. All new parking areas will provide landscape islands per the current LDC requirements. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. 11 Spaces 11 Spaces Existing Buffalo Wild Wings Ta m i a m i T r a i l E a s t ( U S 4 1 ) 19 Spaces 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) PROPOSEDPARCEL LINEPUDBOUNDARYGradyMinorCivil EngineersƔLand SurveyorsƔPlannersƔLandscape ArchitectsCERT. OF AUTH. EB 0005151CERT. OF AUTH. LB 0005151BUSINESS LC 26000266Bonita Springs239.947.1144Fort Myers239.690.4380www.GradyMinor.com Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.9499#DEVIATIONDeviation #9 seeks relief from Section4.06.C.4 of the LDC, which requires aperimeter landscape buffer forproperties within activity centers to be aminimum of 20 feet in width, to permita minimum width of 15' with an averagewidth of 20' as shown for the 0.28 acreparcel located at the intersection ofPeters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. Thebuffer may include traffic controldevices and utilities.49.B.2Packet Pg. 111Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) July 25, 2016Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing.AR No. #95510Exhibit D - Building Signage A6CB263A1BD45FRONT (EAST) ELEVATIONREAR (WEST) ELEVATIONTBC SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATIONDOCK SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATIONREAR (SOUTH) ELEVATIONFRONT (NORTH) ELEVATIONLEFT (EAST) ELEVATIONRIGHT (WEST) ELEVATIONENote: This Exhibit applies to a single large format retail user such as Sam's Club.The buildings and plantings are subject to LDC requirements.WITHDRAWN9.B.2Packet Pg. 112Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) RESTAURANT TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41) VACANT RESTAURANT 1 5 0 ' E X D R A I N A G E E S M T POOL\ AMENITY G A R A G E GARAGE GAR A G E GARAGE GARAGEGARAGEGARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GAS STATION DUNKIN DOUNTS COLLEE COURTP E T E R ' S S T R E E T STARBU C K S GARAGE MAINTENANCE BUILDING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY ZONED: 50' ACTUAL: 60' ZONED: 55' ACTUAL: 65' ZONED: 55' ACTUAL: 65' ZONED: 55' ACTUAL: 65' ZONED: 50' ACTUAL: 60' RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT EXHIBIT COURTHOUSE APARTMENTS September 23, 2019 0046600E0708.DWGJ.R. ENGINEERING EVANS EXHIBIT E - 9.B.2 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 101619r1 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.3Packet Pg. 114Attachment: Attachment B Master Plan (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 1 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review Growth Management Department Zoning Division C O N S IS T E N C Y RE V I E W M E M O RA N D U M To: James Sabo, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: May 21, 2019 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment PETITION NUMBER: PUDA PL20180003658 [REV: 2] PETITION NAME: Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment REQUEST: This petition seeks to amend the Courthouse Shadows PUD to introduce a multi-family residential component that provides for: 1) a mixed-use option that combines 300 multi-family rental dwelling units with 65,000 commercial sq. ft., or 2) a commercial-only option for the 165,000 commercial sq. ft. already allowed. LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of ±20.35 acres, is located south and west of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), north of Haldeman Creek and Collee Court, and east of Peters Avenue, in Sections 11, 12 & 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Courthouse Shadows PUD amendment petition is contingent upon approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1. The subject property is currently designated Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC) Subdistrict (and is also considered within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict for purposes of calculating eligible density), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and map series within the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The data and analysis required by the FLUE for consideration of a rezone petition within an Activity Center are specified in the Factors to Consider During Review of a Rezone Petition provisions of the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. These factors are more relevant to a rezone request to a commercial zoning district and some factors are addressed in other policies, e.g. interconnections, compatibility. Therefore, it is staff ’s opinion that these factors do not need to be addressed for this petition to add residential use to an existing commercial PUD. The property also lies within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay (CHHA). The B/GTRO encourages development and redevelopment. One means of doing so is through a density bonus incentive. The prior zoning of 9.B.4 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 2 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review the Botanical Gardens PUD site would have allowed 388 dwelling units. Those [unused] units were placed into a density pool that may be allocated by the Board of County Commissioners on a project by project basis, either for a mixed use project or a residential-only project. The subject petition relies upon this density pool, in part, to achieve the requested densi ty of 14.74 DU/A (300 DUs). The B/GTRO provisions for residential-only projects and for density calculations are provided below, with staff analysis following [bracketed in bold]. 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport -Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential -only project at a maximum density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11 except that no project may utilize more than 97 units – 25% of the 388 total density pool units available. [The subject site has frontage on US 41 East; this petition proposes a density <8 DU/A (7.77) requesting the use of 97 units from the bonus pool.] The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. [The project is in the form of a PUD, and the subject request is for a PUD amendment.] b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. [The subject site comprises ±18.8 of the 20.35 overall acres.] c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. [The site was previously developed with commercial uses only. This amendment will allow redevelopment of the site with mixed residential and commercial uses.] d. All residential units shall be market rate units. [The project will be developed with market rate units.] 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs #4 and #5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. [The current underlying (Courthouse Shadows PUD) zoning lacks a residential component. This amendment introduces a residential component, and the site will yield 75 DUs (4 DU/A x 18.8 acres). Within this area is the 10-acre residential (sub)component (subject of companion GMPA) that will yield 128 DUs (12.8 DU/A x 10 acres). Combined, this yields 203 DUs. This petition’s proposed 300 DUs total (14.74 DU/A) less the eligible density of 203 DUs yields a request for 97 DUs from the density bonus pool.] Because there is a finite supply of density bonus pool units (388 total, less about 10 bonus units previously utilized, yielding about 378 units) to award as an incentive for redevel opment, careful consideration should be given to each request to use the density bonus pool. In staff’s opinion, this is an appropriate project in which to do so. Aside from complying with the criteria allowing the use of density bonus pool units, staff notes this is one of the few sites within the entire B/GTRO of 9.B.4 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 3 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review considerable size without necessity of aggregating numerous parcels – which can be difficult to achieve. On that note, staff believes it appropriate for this PUD to include a provision for ret urn of any unused density bonus pool units within a specified time period. This insures that any unused units are not permanently attached to the land, rather are returned to the pool so that they can be awarded to incentivize some other development(s) in the B/GTRO. This petition relies, in large part, on a companion small-scale GMP amendment to FLUM Inset Map (MUAC #16) to achieve density consistency. That amendment [ref. PL180003659/CPSS-2019-1] depicts an area of ten (10) acres within Activity Center #16 to coincide with the residential component of Courthouse Shadows PUD, as also depicted on this Mixed-Use Option Master Plan. Relevant FLUE objectives and policies are stated below, followed by staff remarks. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. Comprehensive Planning reviewers leave this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, the compatibility analysis is encouraged to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties regarding allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, and so forth. The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use arrangements and choice -making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. The Board of County Commissioners held a workshop earlier in 2019 to revisit these (and other) Smart Growth policies and practices, which resulted with a renewed support for and reemphasis on them. Each Policy is followed by staff analysis and comments [in bold italicized text]. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: 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. [This property fronts, and has direct access to, Tamiami Trail (US 41), classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element. No new connection(s) to Tamiami Trail will be made.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The property is proposed as a redevelopment project. The introduction of multi-family rental 9.B.4 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 4 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review apartment housing to transform Courthouse Shadows to a mixed-use (commercial and residential) development does not propose changes to the existing configuration of access points onto Tamiami Trail or Peters Street.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [This triangular-shaped property abuts three roads, a creek, and one small (0.32 acres), undeveloped commercial parcel; staff does not believe it feasible to connect to that one parcel. The PUD Master Plan does depict internal interconnections between the proposed 10-acre residential component designated R, Residential and the bordering areas designated C/R, Commercial/Residential and C, Commercial.] 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. [The mixed- use development provides numerous opportunities to maintain or improve a walkable arrangement of buildings and spaces, for preserving the existing amount of common open spaces or enhancing their design and functionality , and for ensuring residents can walk to the businesses located in the commercial component, and to the access points with Tamiami Trail and Peters Street. A pedestrian sidewalk is currently found along the frontage of the property, on the near side of Tamiami Trail. The current access to this sidewalk from the commercial development is interrupted, disconnected, or in other ways incomplete – and this project can complete these sidewalk connections, i.e., along the entrance drive to the Espinal Blvd (S) ‒ Tamiami Trail intersection. The County CAT Transit terminal is accessed at this fully signalized intersection. Providing access to the facilities for new tenant residents, as well as improving access for commercial customers, is vitally important in the mixed-use conversion, but is not depicted on the Courthouse Shadows PUD Master Plan or discussed in other submittal materials. Pedestrian-oriented improvements to the Espinal Blvd (N) ‒ Tamiami Trail intersection are not pursued. All of these details may be more specific than is required to be provided on the PUD Master Plan or in the rezone submittal. Staff encourages the petitioner to incorporate these pedestrian-oriented improvements during site development planning. No other deviations are requested pertaining to sidewalks; therefore, the project will be subject to LDC requirements for provision of sidewalks.] CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, this proposed PUDA may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE. However, the petition may be deemed consistent if and when the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition (PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1) is adopted and goes into effect. The PUD 9.B.4 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 5 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date consistent with the effective date of the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition. Stipulations: 1. This petition may only be deemed consistent with the FLUE if the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition (PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1) is adopted and goes into effect. 2. The PUDA Ordinance needs to provide for an effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition. 3. The PUDA Ordinance needs to provide a Planning Commitment stating, to the effect, “A maximum of ninety-seven (97) density bonus pool units, as provided by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, are available for this RPUD for a period of seven (7) years from the date of approval of this PUDA. If, after seven (7) years any of the bonus units have n ot been utilized, the bonus units shall expire and not be available unless authorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals. cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division G:\Comp\Consistency Reviews\2019\PUDA \\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2019\PUDA\PUDA-PL2018-3658 Courthse Shdws R1_FNL.docx 9.B.4 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 1 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Deviations 1 through 10 were previously approved for Exhibit A Master Plan by Ordinance 2016- 45 at the December 13, 2016 BCC Hearing. Deviation 7 is being modified to include residential signage. Deviations 11 through 17 are new and being requested for the residential development option. 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off -street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10’x20’ (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. Justification: The Sam’s Club currently has a square footage of approximately 143,000 s.f. According to the code for this size of a store a total of 7 loading docks would be required. Sam’s currently shows a total of 5 loading docks (12’ wide by 90’ long), based on business knowledge and historical information this number of loading docks is more than adequate to operate the business. Sam’s Club operates their own vehicle fleet and controls the timing of all truck deliveries. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet a shared 15’ landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately owned lotsplatted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. Justification: The existing conditions are such that the landscape buffers do not exist betwee n the parent tract and outparcels. The redevelopment plan for this PUD, is to provide the buffers on the opposite side of the drive aisle from the outparcels. This area provides an average of at least an 8’ wide planting area and is even greater in some ar eas, which is an adequate width to permit landscape plantings. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 2 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5’ wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. Justification: The existing water management systems are within the required yard buffers and the redevelopment of this PUD requires additional water management system. The water management areas will have planting shelfs along the perimeter to support the required landscaping within the buffers as depicted on the attached exhibi ts. This will also permit existing mature buffers varying in width, which do not consistently meet the 20’ wide minimum for activity centers adjacent to roadways. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of park ing spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. Justification: There are existing areas in the shopping center in the n orthern part of the site that is not being redeveloped at this time where there are currently more than ten parking spaces in a row without a landscaping island. The development is requesting to leave those areas as is if there are no impacts planned. All new parking areas will provide landscape islands per the current LDC requirements. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6’ away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. Justification: The required fence or wall already exists in many places along the existing property line with established landscaping and buffering. The redevelopment proposes to leave those areas that are established so as not to disturb the existing buffer and supplement areas as needed with additional landscape material so as maximize the water management system area and landscaping buffers on the site. The placement of the fence on the property line will also allow security and safety for nearby residents by creating a barrier from the projects surface water management system. This is depicted on the attached exhibit. 6. WITHDRAWN 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 3 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with, which permits on-premise directory signs for multi-occupancy parcels with a minimum of 8 independent units containing 20,000 square feet of leasable floor area to allow the existing directory signs to be utilized to identify the residential component of the mixed-use PUD and to have fewer than 8 tenants identified on the signage panels and at the existing height of 25’ to remain. Justification: This deviation is justified as the LDC signage standards do not contain standards for signage where a PUD is developed as a mixed-use project. The applicant would utilize existing sign structures to add residential identification in addition to commercial uses, which have existing use rights to the signage that was rebuilt in 2018 following damage occurring due to Hurricane Irma. The deviation provides for a logical use of the existing signage wherein the Code is otherwise silent on signage for mixed-use. 8. WITHDRAWN 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15’ with an average width of 20’ as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. However, tree plantings shall not be placed over or within six feet of any public water, reclaimed water, or sewer utility lines and shall not interfere with any County or state traffic control devices or access to all county or state traffic control equipment and devices and utilities. Whenever plantings obstruct the ingress and/or egress for the purposes of the easement they shall be removed upon request by the City of Naples, county or state, and in the event of failure by the owner to so move them, the city, county or state may do so and the expense of same charged to the property owner. When plantings placed over utility lines cause damage to the utilities systems, the property owner shall bear the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged utilities. Justification: The existing project perimeter buffer for the developed portion of the project varies from approximately 13 feet in width to 20 feet, The deviation will permit the property owner to install a buffer more consistent with that immediately adjacent to the 0.28± acre par cel being added to the PUD. Please see Deviation #9 Buffer Exhibit. 10. WITHDRAWN 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 4 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 11. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow no buffers on the commercial outparcels adjacent to the internal access road. Justification: The applicant is not proposing changes to the existing commercial outparcels that front US-41 with this request. The existing commercial outparcels are platted lots in which many of the outparcels have existing buildings. For reference, the commercial outparcels are highlighted in yellow, the primary access road is highlighted in blue, and the redevelopment area is highlighted in green in the “Deviation 11 Exhibit” located on the following page. The purpose of this request is that the existing commercial outparcels that front US-41 could be subject to providing a 10’-Type “D” buffer on their property in the event that they redevelop or modify their site plans. This places an unfair burden on the commercial outparcels that have existing buildings and improvements on their properties. The existing improvements extend up to the primary access road leaving no room for an additional 10’-wide buffer without major impacts. The applicant requests that the existing commercial outparcels shall not be subject to providing a landscape buffer on their properties where adjacent to the primary access road. Since this request is internal to the Mixed Use planned development there are no negative impacts anticipated. Please reference the “Deviation 11 Exhibit” on the following page for more detail on the request. 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 5 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 6 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 12. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow a 5’-wide Type “D” buffer on the property located on the south side of the primary access road. Justification: The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing parent tract of the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development either into new commercial or multi-family residential. The redevelopment is proposed for the property located south of the existing primary access road. Both redevelopment options propose to retain the primary access road. The commercial redevelopment option would plan to also retain the existing parking configuration on the south side of the access road. The existing parking configuration includes parking lot drive aisles that intersect with the existing access road only leaving room for a terminal landscape island in the parking area. These existing terminal landscape islands vary in width and are 5’ wide on average. As previously mentioned, the multi-family residential option proposes to retain the existing access road and also add perpendicular parking spaces and a pedestrian sidewalk on the south side of the access road. The intent of retaining the access road is to integrate the residential community with the existing commercial outparcels to create a cohesive community. The code required 10’-wide Type “D” buffer between the existing access road and multi-family residential pushes the residential furth er away from the commercial and would work against the intent to have an integrated, cohesive community. Therefore, the applicant requests to reduce this buffer from 10’-wide to a minimum of a 5’- wide on the property to the south of the primary access road. The location of the requested deviation is internal to the Courthouse Shadows mixed-use development and no negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this request. Please reference the “Deviation 12 Exhibit” on the following pages which better i llustrates the request. 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 7 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 8 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 9 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 13. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, which requires that Type “D” buffers be located adjacent to any primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow the buffer to be placed a maximum of 25’ from the south side of the primary access road. Justification: The applicant is proposing a multi-family residential redevelopment option on the property located on the south side of the existing access road. The multi-family redevelopment option seeks to provide perpendicular parking spaces placed directly on the south side of the existing access road that would be accessible by any vehicle utilizing the access road and patrons of the commercial outparcels and residents of the community. The additional parking would be placed perpendicular to the existing access road and a pedestrian sidewalk would be placed along the back of the parking spaces. Standard parking spaces are 18’-deep and pedestrian sidewalks are typically 5’-wide for a total distance of 23’. Please reference the “Deviation 13 Exhibit” for more detail on the request. Code requires that the Type “D’ buffer be placed adjacent to the access road however with the proposed parking and sidewalk this is not attainable. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Type “D” buffer be allowed to be placed a maximum of 25’ from the edge of pavement of the existing access road which is the 23’ as mentioned above plus an extra 2’ to allow some flexibility with the sidewalk width . This request is being made in order to provide additional parking areas for the commercial outparcels along with a pedestrian sidewalk internal to the PUD. There are no negative impacts anticipated as a result of this request. 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 10 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 11 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 14. Deviation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Tab le 1, Dimensional Requirements in the BMUD-NC, to allow the multi-family residential portion of the PUD to establish their own residential development types and dimensional standards as set forth in this PUD. Justification: The applicant is proposing specific dimensional standards for the development within this planned unit development request. Therefore LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1. shall not apply. 15. Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G Table 17, Parking Space Requirements – Multi-family Dwellings, which allows parking to be provided at 50 percent of normal requirements, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouse, to instead allow the 50 percent reduction of normal requirements for golf courses/ clubhouse uses. Justification: The applicant is proposing a multi-family redevelopment option for the parent property located in the Courthouse Shadows PUD. The multi -family project would include a private clubhouse for the residents to use on the property. Due to confusion on parking requirements for Multi-family clubhouses a Staff Clarification was issued under SC 2005-02. In SC 2005-02, Multi-family Dwellings are required to calculate their clubhouse parking per the requirements of LDC Section 4.05.04 Table 17 for “Golf Course.” It was also determine d in SC 2005-02 that Multi-family clubhouses were not allowed to take a 50 percent reduction from the parking requirements for clubhouses that is a reduction granted for other recreational facilities within Multi-family communities. The Project is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Overlay, which was established to provide incentives to encourage private sector investment into the urban area. Additionally, the multi-family redevelopment project has been designed to provide pedestrian interconnectivity between the commercial and residential uses along with additional parking areas along the access road. The requested parking deviation is consistent with redevelopment projects and with other residential projects that have private clubhouses. The applicant wishes to provide parking for the residential option at the following standards: 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 12 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 9.B.5 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com Agenda item 4a-August 5, 2019 Special Meeting Minutes Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency AGENDA Naples Botanical Garden, FGCU Buehler Auditorium, 4940 Bayshore Dr, Naples, FL 34112 Special Meeting August 05, 2019 6:01 PM Chairman Maurice Gutierrez Karen Beatty, Camille Kielty, Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Al Schantzen, Michael Sherman, Dwight Oakley, Steve Rigsbee 1. Call to order and Roll Call: Advisory Board Members Present: Maurice Gutierrez, Karen Beatty, Steve Main, Mike Sherman, Larry Ingram, Al Schantzen and Dwight Oakley. Excused Absence: Camille Kielty and Steve Rigsbee. CRA Staff Present: Shirley Garcia, Operations Coordinator, CRA; Tami Scott, Project Manager.; Debrah Forester, CRA Director; and Sean Callahan, Executive Director of Corporate Business Operations. Pledge of Allegiance Led by Chairman Maurice Gutierrez 2. Adoption of Agenda Staff requested the following changes to the Agenda, under Old Business 4b add Fire Suppression Phase II. Steve Main made a motion to adopt the Agenda as amended. Second by Al Schantzen. Passed Unanimously. 3. Old Business a. Courthouse Shadows MPUD- Debrah Forester, CRA Director introduced the project and mentioned the request from Mark Strain, Chairman of the Planning Commission that the CRA Board provide a recommendation and comments for the Planning Board. Wayne Arnold, Q Grady Minor and Associates, introduced Rob Sucher – Johnson Development Associates, Rich Yovanovich – Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester Law Firm and Doug Kirby – Kite Realty Group. Mr. Arnold gave a brief description of the proposed redevelopment of the 20-acre site. Two applications have been submitted. One is a small-scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment which proposes to increase density for 10 acres of the site, the other is a PUD amendment adding up to 300 multi-family apartments as on option for the site, 9.B.6 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com while maintaining the big box option. Rob Sucher, representing the potential developer, presented the site plan for the apartment complex and noted they are still in early design phase. The design’s intent is to be consistent of the Bayshore area and offer a rental product they feel is a need in the area specifically with the Government Center being across the street. This is a challenging site plan due to the awkward geometry of the site, but they tried to incorporate the comments they have received from the community. The dominant portion of the density will be centralized within the site and the buildings will be right up front behind the access drive between the existing Commercial Businesses. The intent is to reactivate the businesses up front along the US 41 corridor and provide a shared parking area for everyone. He discussed access from US41 and Peters. The architectural design is coastal contemporary with architectural embellishments and landscaping. They are proposing a business center/shared workspace in the clubhouse that will include some private offices and conference room. Tenants will be able to access the space to encourage live/work opportunities. They also are proposing an area for a kayak and paddle board launch onto Haldeman Creek, a dog walking area, a community pool, and a barbecue area. Advisory Board/Community Comments: Al Schantzen asked how close the buildings are to Peters and Collie Ct. Mr. Sucher gave the approximate closest point(corner) of the buildings to Collie Ct. is 76ft. and 120ft the other building closest to Peters Avenue is 70ft in their current form before the road. The screening will be landscaping buffers on the outside and inside of the fence around all sides that are surrounding the residential neighborhoods. Maurice Gutierrez asked if the structures are all 4 stories or will they change before submittal. Rob Sucher stated they would all remain at 4 stories maximum, they are proposing 300 units on the 20 + acre parcel. Karen Beatty asked if there would be a sidewalk on the residential streets and Mr. Sucher said there was already an existing agreement with the County to pay in lieu of installing a sidewalk. There were discussions if the County requirement would be to install a masonry wall to buffer the residential streets and Rob Sucher explained they would install a fence with landscaping on both sides as a buffer and for aesthetics. Al Schantzen commented about his concerns about noise, and lighting being an issue and that would not be an adequate buffer for the residents on Peters 9.B.6 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com Ave and Collie Ct. Karen Beatty asked if a chain link fence was within the Code requirements because she felt it was not an adequate buffer as well. Some of the public questions were about the price point and Mr. Sucher explained it was market rate and the market driven the price for the 1-3 Bedrooms. Mike Sherman asked what the proposed square footage of the apartments would be. Mr. Sucher noted they would be 760 sq. ft to 1300 sq. ft for a 3 bedroom, 3 bathroom unit. Another public comment was the concern there were not enough parking spaces but Mr. Sucher assured everyone they would have more than what the code required. Al Schantzen asked if they were looking for the Boards blessing on the density and the residential component and Wayne Arnold replied yes if the CRA Board would support both components that would be great. Al Schantzens concern about supporting the density bonus units to be applied to this particular development and the developer never going through with the project and tie up the density units for 7yrs and prevent another great project from being able to use the density because of this project or flipping the property and get something completely different and he also asked why they would need it, there should be a sufficient amount of units without it, Mr. Sucher wanted to reassure the Board that he would not have spent the amount of time and money to just walk away from this and his intention is to complete the project and move forward, he also stated that in order for this project to work, they would need the density units. Mr. Kite wanted to reassure everyone that they stepped back after the Sam’s Club project didn’t work out and looked at what the highest and best use of the site would be and this project fit that criteria. Mr. Schantzen asked about the deviations they were requesting so Mr. Arnold gave a few examples of the deviations and noted that there were existing deviations that were already approved from the previous MPUD project. Larry Ingram wanted to make sure that this could only be a for rent product and never convert to a for sale project in the future, Mr. Sucher wanted to assure 9.B.6 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com everyone the MPUD was specific to a rental project and if they ever changed, they would have to go through this process all over again. Ms. Forester recapped some of the Boards comments for them to take under consideration as they vote on the project: 1. Some concern is the rear fencing some commitment that it is decorative or opaque with landscaping on both sides; 2. Front fence should be some sort of decorative fencing with no solid wall; 3. Maintain the pedestrian connection to reactivate the commercial component 4. Developer’s commitment on the current MPUD for a sidewalk on Peter Street – was that payment in-lieu outstanding or was that to be forthcoming. 5. Haldeman Creek MSTU – verification of the developments impact on the Haldeman Creek MSTU. Steve Main made a motion to support the project as presented with the density and the addition of the Residential component to the project, Karen Beatty second the motion. Al Schantzen wanted to state he would support the project without the density. Passed 6-1. b. Fire Suppression Phase II- Tami Scott, Project Manager gave an update on the status of the project. Procurement Department received all of the bids for the construction of the Fire Suppression project with the lowest bidder being Higgins at $677,000. The Highest bidder was $829,000. This item will be on the Board of County Commissioners Agenda on September 10, 2019. Staff is recommending the Board approve Higgins as the lowest bidder. Al Schantzen wanted to find out if staff was going to do additional projects while the road is being tore up and they won’t have to do it again for another project, Tami Scott noted that staff had no other projects scheduled at this time for this project but in future projects staff will try to coordinate with a stormwater project or a sidewalk project at the same time. Maurice Gutierrez made a motion to approve the lowest contractor, seconded by Steve Main. Passed Unanimously. 4. Public Comment: 5. Staff Comments: No staff comments at this time. 6. Advisory Board Comments: Mike Sherman had asked the status of the Thomasson Drive Project and when they will break ground, Tami Scott gave a brief update on the project, Debrah Forester said realistically it will probably begin in early 2020. Karen 9.B.6 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com Beatty asked when construction will begin for phase III of fire suppression. Ms. Scott said probably in 9 months. 7. Next meeting date: October 1, 2019 8. Meeting Adjourned: 7:32 PM __________________________________________ Chairman Maurice Gutierrez 9.B.6 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.B.8 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID 10195 (10645 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment PL20180003658 Application and Supporting Documents September 19, 2019 CCPC Hearing November 12, 2019 BCC Hearing Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com February 11, 2019 Mr. James Sabo, AICP Collier County Growth Management Division/ Planning and Regulation Land Development Services Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment – PL20180003658, Submittal 1 Dear Mr. Sabo: A Collier County application for Public Hearing for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment for properties located at the southeast quadrant of Airport Road and Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) is being filed electronically for review. This application proposes to amend the 20.35+/- acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. A companion small-scale amendment (PL20180003659) will be filed simultaneously to address density requirements for the property. The PUD has been revised and is proposed in the latest format for PUD’s. We have retained all existing commercial uses and development standards to insure that property owners not included in the current application submittal retain all existing development entitlements. Documents filed with submittal 1 include the following: 1. Cover Letter 2. Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone 3. Additional Agent Information 4. Evaluation Criteria 5. Pre-application meeting notes 6. Affidavit of Authorization 7. Property Ownership Disclosure Form 8. Covenant of Unified Control Mr. James Sabo RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment – PL20180003658, Submittal 1 February 11, 2019 Page 2 of 2 9. Completed Addressing Checklist 10. Warranty Deed(s) 11. Aerial Location Map 12. Environmental Data 13. Traffic Impact Study 14. School Impact Analysis 15. PUD Exhibits A-F 16. Deviation Justifications 17. Original PUD Document Please feel free to contact Rich Yovanovich at 435-3535 or me should you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP c: Doug Kirby Rob Sucher Richard D. Yovanovich GradyMinor File COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 1 of 11 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________ Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. To be completed by staff KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC and KRG Courthouse Shadows II, LLC KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100 Indianapolis IN 46204 317-578-5165 dkirby@kiterealty.com D. Wayne Arnold AICP (also see Additional Agent Information document) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs FL 34134 239.947.1144 warnold@gradyminor.com 4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 2 of 11 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the ________________________________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: • If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; • The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and • The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial Mixed Use Other: ________________ Portion of 1-3 Ordinance 92-008 and Ordinance 2016-45 CPUD Commercial Residential and commercial Courthouse Shadows 11, 12, 13 50 25 A Eastgate (OR32 Page 478) and Courthouse Shadows See Exhibit 1 Legal Description 29 40-41 28750000028, 28750000523, 28750000769 and 30480040100 Irregular Irregular 886,446+/_20.35+/- Southeast quadrant of Airport Road and Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41). 3290 and 3420 TAMIAMI TRL E. MPUD COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 3 of 11 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Collier County Government Complex PUD, C-3 (GTMUD-MXD)Government Offices, Office C-3 (BMUD-R1), RSF-4 (BMUD-R1), RSF-4 & C-3 Vacant, Legal Offices and Residential Collier County Government Complex PUD, C-3 & C-5 Government Offices, Real Estate Office, WalMart Retail Store RMF-6 (BMUD-R1), C-3 (GTMUD-MXD) & RMF-6 (BMUD-R1)Vacant, Offices and Residential N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 4 of 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. 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. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 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 asce rtain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D 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 supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 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” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. No. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ Portion of 1-3 KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100 Indianapolis IN 46204 317-578-5165 dkirby@kiterealty.com 3290 and 3420 TAMIAMI TRL E. 11, 12, 13 50 25 A Eastgate (OR32 Page 478) and Courthouse Shadows See Exhibit 1 Legal Description 29 40-41 28750000028, 28750000523, 28750000769 and 30480040100 X X City of Naples 300 Multi-family units with 65,000 SF Commercial 166,183 GPD 123,098 GPD 123,231 GPD 91,282 GPD Connection Exists COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. Sanitary Sewer service exists for the subject property and will be utilized to serve the proposed development. Potable Water is provided by the City of Naples. Please find a Letter of Service availability enclosed for your records The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Collier County's wastewater service area. The existing system is owned by Collier County Utilities and will remain in their ownership. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 8 of 11 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for ______________ planned unit development (______________PUD) zoning. We hereby designate___________________, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: 1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Owner Owner ____________________________________ ___________________________________ Printed Name Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this day of , 201__ by ____________________ who is personally known to me or has produced _____________________________ as identification. ____________________________________ Notary Public (Name typed, printed or stamped) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 9 of 11 Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre-application meeting notes 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 Statement of Utility Provisions 1 Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 Traffic Impact Study 1 Historical Survey 1 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 Electronic copy of all required documents 1 Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Checklist continues on next page 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 10 of 11 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams & David Berra Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Transportation Review Fees: o Methodology Review: $500.00, to be paid directly to Transportation at the Methodology Meeting* *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 X X X 4 4 4 4 4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 11 of 11 Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. ___________________________________ _____________ Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date ___________________________________ Printed named of signing party X X X D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 04/16/2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Exhibit 1 Legal Description April 16, 2019 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit 1 Legal Description.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, & 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF COURTHOUSE SHADOWS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 PAGES 40-41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID PLAT FOR THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE S 89° 01' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 838.57 FEET; 2. THENCE N 00° 15' 36" W, A DISTANCE OF 276.13 FEET; 3. THENCE N 89° 59' 12" W, A DISTANCE OF 331.40 FEET; 4. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. THENCE S 89° 28' 37" W, A DISTANCE OF 140.47 FEET; 6. THENCE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 757.17 FEET; 7. THENCE N 89° 15' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.91 FEET; 8. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET; 9. THENCE S 89° 13' 43" W, A DISTANCE OF 138.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF PETERS AVENUE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 56 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 116.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3939, PAGE 463 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE N 38° 02' 06" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.66 FEET; 2. THENCE S 82° 55' 44" E, A DISTANCE OF 23.32 FEET; 3. THENCE S 51° 37' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE FOR THE REMAINING COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. S 52° 02' 35" E, A DISTANCE OF 85.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 59' 04", A RADIUS OF 1773.76 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 45° 33' 03" E, 401.11 FEET; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.97 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 2. THENCE S 39° 03' 31" E, A DISTANCE OF 1306.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. April 23, 2019 VIA: E-MAIL Kristina M. Johnson, P.E. KJohnson@jreeng.com Director of Land Development J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. 9351 Corkscrew Road, Suite 102 Estero, Florida 33928 Subject: Wastewater Service Availability Project: Courthouse Shadows Parcel #: 28750000523, 28750000769, 30480040100 Dear Kristina: The subject project is within the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s (CCWSD) wastewater service area and the City of Naples’ water service area. This property already receives wastewater service from the CCWSD. Adequate capacity for the proposed redevelopment project will be confirmed during the development review process and any system upgrades necessary to support the project will be the responsibility of the developer. Additional connections to the existing 8” gravity sewers along Collee Court and Peters Avenue may be allowed if adequate capacity is confirmed. Connection to the CCWSD’s wastewater collection system will be permitted only in the locations referenced herein, or in a superseding service availability letter, and only after the GMD Development Review Division’s approval of hydraulic calculations prepared by the Developer’s Engineer of Record in accordance with the Design Criteria found in Section 1 of the Collier County Water-Sewer District Utilities Standards Manual. Adequate capacity to this project is not guaranteed until the project receives a commitment for service. A preliminary utility plan must be reviewed and discussed at a pre-submittal conference with representatives of the Public Utilities Department and the Growth Management Department, as required by Sec. 134-58, paragraph (b)(2) of the Code of Ordinances. This conference may be conducted by email at the discretion of the Public Utilities Department. See the attached GIS screen shot and record drawings for approximate utility locations. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (239) 252-1037 or Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov. Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E., Senior Project Manager CC: Beth Johnssen, Division Director – Wastewater, PUD/WWD; Michael Stevens, Principal Project Manager, PUD/EPMD; Brett Rosenblum, Principal Project Manager, GMD/DRD; Utility Planning Section GIS Screen Shot COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ 4/15/2015 Page 8 of 16 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 4/15/2015 Page 9 of 16 Courthouse Shadows PUD Amendment Exhibit 2 Property ID #’s Folio Number: 28750000769 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: NO SITE ADDRESS Folio Number: 28750000523 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3420 TAMIAMI TRL E Folio Number: 28750000028 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3390 TAMIAMI TRL E Folio Number: 30480040100 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3260 TAMIAMI TRL E Multi-family 300 250 Wastewater is 250 GPD per unit per Collier County 75,000 101,250 Burger King 92 20 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours or less per day, per seat 1,840 2,484 Dunkin Donuts 19 20 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours or less per day, per seat 380 513 Dunkin Donuts (Office)2,030 0.15 FAC 64.6 Table for Office Building per SF 305 412 Gas Station 1 325 FAC 64.6 Table for Service Station open more than 16 hours per day per water closet 325 439 Chrissy's Café 50 40 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant operating less than 16 hours per day, per seat 2,000 2,700 Starbucks 62 35 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating more than 16 hours per day, per seat 2,170 2,930 Shopping Center 51,083 0.1 FAC 64E-6.008 for Shopping Center without food or laundry 5,108 6,896 87,128 117,624 Notes: 1. Peak Factor = 1.35 2. Conversion to Potable = 1.4 3. The Shopping Center Area is the balance of the 65,000 SF after removing the areas for Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, the gas station, Chrissy's, and Starbucks 4. The Starbucks calculation follows what was submitted under PL20170001359 from Q. Grady Minor with the exception of the GPD per Unit. The Starucks calculation utilized 35 GPD per Unit. Multi-family 300 350 Wastewater is 250 GPD per unit per Collier County 105,000 141,750 Burger King 92 28 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours or less per day, per seat 2,576 3,478 Dunkin Donuts 19 28 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours or less per day, per seat 532 718 Dunkin Donuts (Office)2,030 0.21 FAC 64.6 Table for Office Building per SF 426 575 Gas Station 1 455 FAC 64.6 Table for Service Station open more than 16 hours per day per water closet 455 614 Chrissy's Café 50 56 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant operating less than 16 hours per day, per seat 2,800 3,780 Starbucks 62 49 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating more than 16 hours per day, per seat 3,038 4,101 Shopping Center 51,083 0.14 FAC 64E-6.008 for Shopping Center without food or laundry 7,152 9,655 121,979 164,671 Notes: 1. Peak Factor = 1.35 (Used for the Statement of System Capacity Analysis) Total: Estimated Wastewater Demands - Proposed Apartment Complex Use Number of Units GPD per unit GPD Calc Method Average Daily Flow (GPD) Peak Hour Flow (GPD) Total: Estimated Water Demands - Proposed Apartment Complex Use Number of Units GPD per unit GPD Calc Method Average Daily Flow (GPD) Peak Hour Flow (GPD) J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING 9351 CORKSCREW ROAD, STE. 102 / ESTERO, FL 33928 / 239.405.9148 (p) / 239.288.2537 (f) WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM Wastewater System Capacity Preliminary Analysis Background: The Courthouse Shadows Planned Development currently consists of mostly built-out commercial outparcels that front US-41 and two (2) large existing commercial strip-center buildings on the south portion of the property. Courthouse Shadows is currently served by an existing 8” gravity main and an existing lift station located onsite. Potable water is provided by the City of Naples. The existing gravity main traverses across the southern portion of the site and serves all of the existing commercial buildings with the exception of the existing Starbucks and existing Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant which are both served by the existing gravity main and lift station located on Peters Street to the west of the property. Request: The Courthouse Shadows Planned Development Amendment is requesting to add multi-family residential to the schedule of uses with a maximum of 300 units. The two (2) large existing commercial strip-center buildings in the south portion of the property have been vacant for some time, and if the Amendment is approved, it is the intent to redevelop these two (2) buildings into multi-family residential buildings. Since multi-family residential uses generate more wastewater compared to commercial uses, it seemed appropriate for this unique redevelopment to complete a preliminary analysis to determine if the existing wastewater infrastructure has capacity to serve the proposed 300 multi-family residential units. A preliminary engineering analysis was completed for the existing wastewater infrastructure with the additional flows generated by multi-family residential. It should be noted that the wastewater flows from Courthouse Shadows ultimately discharge into the South County Water Reclamation Facility which as of April 1st of 2019 has the capacity for an additional 6,400,000± Gallons per Day. Existing System Capacity: Coordination with the Collier County Utility Department and Collier County Records Department was necessary to obtain the existing information for the onsite lift station LS #305.02, the existing wastewater system downstream of LS #305.02, and the existing lift station located at the intersection of Peters Street and US-41 identified as LS #308.05. A “Site Evaluation Report” was prepared by Hole Montes in 2013 for both LS #305.02 and LS #308.05. Information gathered from these reports along with record drawings helped to determine the functionality and capacity of the existing lift stations. Additionally, a WaterCAD model was completed for the existing onsite lift station LS #305.02 to confirm that the existing downstream force main had the capacity to serve the proposed multi-family residential units. It was determined that the existing onsite lift station, LS #305.02, has the capacity for an additional 22± GPM (Peak), the existing downstream force main from LS #305.02 has the capacity for an additional 115± GPM (Peak), and the existing lift station along Peters Street has the capacity for an additional 52± GPM (Peak). Proposed Wastewater Flow: The wastewater flows generated from the 300 units of multi-family residential total 208± GPM (Peak). These multi-family residential units will offset 50± GPM (peak) of existing commercial uses for a total of 158± GPM (Peak) of additional wastewater flow. Analysis: Onsite Lift Station #305.02: The existing onsite lift station LS #305.02 only has capacity for approximately 22± GPM (Peak) in its current state whereas the existing downstream force main has capacity for 115± GPM (Peak). In order to provide the additional capacity of 115± GPM in LS #305.02 the existing pumps will need to be exchanged for new, slightly larger, pumps. A WaterCAD model was created to confirm that new, slightly larger, pumps will provide the additional capacity without causing negative impacts to the existing downstream force main and connected private lift stations. Peters Street Lift Station #308.05: The “Site Evaluation Report” prepared by Hole Montes for LS #308.05 was reviewed and it was determined that LS #308.05 has the capacity for an additional 52± GPM (Peak). This “Report” was conducted in May 2013 prior to Starbucks and therefore the additional capacity must be reduced by 7± GPM (Peak) from the Starbucks down to 45± GPM (Peak). Combined: The additional capacity from the onsite LS #305.02 of 115± GPM (Peak) combined with the additional capacity from the Peters Street lift station LS #308.05 of 45± GPM (Peak) totals 160± GPM (peak). Conclusion: The additional wastewater flow from 300 multi-family units is expected to be 158± GPM (Peak) and the additional capacity combined from the two (2) existing lift stations is 160± GPM (Peak). If the southern portion of the Courthouse Shadows Planned Development is developed into 300 multi-family residential units then some of the units will need to connect to the existing gravity main and lift station along Peters Street, LS #308.05, and some of the units will need to connect to the onsite gravity main and onsite lift station, LS #305.02. The existing pumps in the onsite lift station LS #305.02 will need to be replaced with new, slightly larger pumps. Based on the preliminary WaterCAD model created for the new, slightly larger pumps in LS #305.02, the existing downstream wastewater system, including connected private pump stations, is not negatively impacted. A mandatory pre-submittal conference will be held at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) to determine if any other improvements will be necessary to LS #305.02 or LS #308.05. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Additional Agent Information January 8, 2019 Page 1 of 1 KRCSA Additional Agent Information.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Agent: Name of Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Firm: Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address: 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34103 Telephone: 239-435-3535 E-Mail Address: ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 1 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. The Courthouse Shadows Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) is a 20.35± acre property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Airport Road. The property is designated Activity Center #16 on the Future Land Use Map. A companion small-scale plan amendment has been submitted which proposes to permit an increase in density for a 10 acre portion of this project located within the activity center as a development option for this PUD. The PUD has been developed to date with approxi mately 150,000 square feet of retail and office commercial uses. This amendment adds development of up to 300 multi -family apartments as an option for the site. An alternative Master Plan (Exhibit C1) option identifies the location of the potential residential dwellings and the area that would remain for commercial uses. Additional deviations have been requested for the residential development option. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The Courthouse Shadows is an established commercial PUD, which has been substantially developed with a variety of commercial uses. Infrastructure is in place to serve the existing and proposed uses. The residential mixed-use development option if developed will reduce transportation impacts versus that of the approved commercial PUD. b. 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 applicant controls a majority (approximately 18.8± acres) of the developed land within the Courthouse Shadows PUD. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 2 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) The Courthouse Shadows PUD is located in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The list of permitted uses within the PUD is being modified to add residential dwelling units as a permittd use, along with appropriate development standards. Uses are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT The project is located within Activity Center #16 on the Future Land Use Map. The project is also located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Overlay. Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to provide for both commercial and residential development. The PUD amendment is accompanied with a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, which proposes to permit increased density on a 10-acre portion of the site. The application proposes a total of 300 multi-family apartments on approximately 18.8 acres of the 20.35 acre PUD. The property plans to utilize up to 97 units from the density pool, in addition to the base density of 4 dwelling units per acre, with the balance of the 300 units resulting from the units permitted by the small-scale amendment. The density calculations are as follows: Activity Center 18.8 ac x 4 du/ac = 75 units Bonus Pool Units 97 units Proposed Small-scale 10 ac x 12.8 du/ac = 128 units Total 300 units Net Density for 18.8 acres residential area 16 du/ac Gross Density for PUD (20.35) 14.74 du/ac A map amendment to Activity Center #16 is also included with the small -scale amendment application, which identifies the 10-acre area in which the increased density will be applicable. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 3 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com The PUD as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Element as revised by the companion small-scale amendment. Policy 5.5 of the FLUE discourages urban sprawl, by confining urban levels of development to the urban designated areas of the County. The subject site is within the urban boundary, and is designated for higher intensity commercial and residential uses. Urban services are available to the site and adequate capacities exist for water, sewer and transportatio n. Policy 5.6 of the FLUE requires that new projects are compatible with and complimentary to surrounding land uses. The proposed mixed-use development will provide shopping and living opportunities for the surrounding area. The conceptual PUD master plan has been designed to insure compatibility with the planned residential communities located to the south and east of this project. The residential options for this PUD will provide buffers meeting the minimum landscape buffer requirements between residential dwellings as required by the Land Development Code, which have been determined to provide a compatible relationship with adjacent projects. The subject PUD will also be installing a vegetative buffer meeting minimum standards per the Land Development Code for buffers separating commercial and residential development. Appropriate development standards have been included in the PUD. Objective 7 and the implementing objectives and policies of the FLUE promote smart growth initiatives and connectivity. The subject PUD application will be a mixed -use planned community and although the residential and commercial will be built on separate building tracts, the residential dwellings will have internal access to the commercial component of the PUD. This interconnectivity will encourage walkability and reduce the necessity to utilize the adjacent arterial roadway for access to commercial needs. A local roadway connection to Peters Avenue will be maintained, which meets the intent of Objective 7. The site is within the City of Naples Water District and the Collier County Sewer District and the development proposed will be served by the City of Naples and Collier County. There is potable water and wasterwater capacity available to serve the project. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Elements of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.1 requires projects to retain a portion of on -site native vegetation. For mixed-use projects greater than 2.5 acres located within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), 25% of the existing native vegetation is to be retained or mitigated through off -site preservation or payment in lieu of. The Courthouse Shadows PUD was approved and developed prior to adoption of this CCME Policy. At the time of development, no-site vegetation was required. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 4 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com The only native vegetation occurring on-site at this time is an area adjacent to Haldeman Creek and consists of approximately 4,000 square feet. The PUD contains language in Section 3.7.14, which identifies that this approximately 4,000 square foot area of native vegetation will be retained or mitigated off-site. CCME Policy 12.1.2 requires land use plan amendments in the Catego ry 1 hurricane vulnerability zone to provide appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts of hurricane evacuation times. A portion of the subject property is located within the Category 1 storm surge area as determined by the Hurricane Evacuation Study prepar ed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. The applicant will coordinate with the County’s Emergency Management staff to determine appropriate mitigation. For similar small-scale amendments, mitigation has typically been payment toward additional emergency cots, generators, etc. CCME Policy 12.2.6 indicates that the County shall require all new sanitary sewer facilities located in the Coastal High Hazard Area be flood-proofed and designed to reduce leakage to the extent practical. The applicant will coordinate with Public Utilities staff to determine whether new sanitary sewer facilities will be required to serve this PUD, and appropriate flood proofing applicable for those facilities. The factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a project, or portion thereof, within an Activity Center, are as follows: a. Rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all reque sts for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. The subject rezoning is for a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development and therefore is consistent with this criteria. b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two (2) road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. The project currently permits up to 165,000 square feet of commercial uses and approximately 149,000 square feet have been constructed. No additional commercial square feet is proposed. c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 5 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com The applicant is a seasoned commercial and residential developer. The site is located at a strategic intersection, which provides arterial road access for both north/south and east/west traffic volumes. A market analysis was prepared by an economist, which concludes there is demand for the proposed 300 rental units. d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two (2) radial miles. All quadrants of the Activity Center are developed with commercial land uses. Commercial uses dominate the U.S. 41 and Airport Road frontages within two miles of the site. Established residential neighborhoods are located on local roadways located south, north and east of the property. e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. The site has access to water, sewer and other public services, which will have capacity to serve the proposed development. A traffic impact analysis has been prepared which identifies that available roadway capacity exists to serve the proposed development. f. Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. The residential buildings would displace existing retail space and buffers will be provided to assure compatibility. The residential buildings will comply with architectural standards in the LDC. g. Natural or man-made constraints. There are no man-made or natural constraints that prohibit development of the site as a mixed use PUD. h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. The criteria for rezonings per the LDC have been addressed in Item F of this Evaluation Criteria, Exhibit 3. i. Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Code. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 6 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com LDC Sections 4.04.02 establishes that mixed-use projects must provide internal interconnection among land uses. The Conceptual PUD Master Plan depicts i nternal accessibility between the mixed use and residential development tracts consistent with this LDC provision. The project will maintain an access to the local street, Peter’s Avenue. j. Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. Existing access points to U.S. 41 will remain. Pedestrian connections currently exist and will be maintained. k. Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting projects. The existing access to Peter’s Avenue will remain. No additional access to Peter’s Avenue is requested. Sidewalks are available on U.S. 41 and Peter’s Avenue. Internal vehicular and pedestrian access will be available internal to the site. l. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. The PUD proposes no deviations from the County’s architectural design guidelines for the residential component of the project. Deviations have been approved for the commercial component of the project and no changes are proposed to those deviations . d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. No changes to the commercial permitted uses are proposed. A residential development option has been included. The uses are compatible with surrounding land uses and are permitted under the Growth Management Plan. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 7 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com A minimum of 30% usable open space for mixed use projects will be provided within the PUD as required by the LDC. The applicant may propose to utilize Haldeman Creek for open space and recreation uses such as kayak launch/dock. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The project is subject to concurrency and adequate infrastructure must be in place to support future development on the site. At this time there are no known deficiencies for any public facility. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The Courthouse Shadows PUD is an existing PUD, which is surrounded by zoned, developed and undeveloped land. Expansion of the PUD boundary is not proposed. There are no other adjacent properties under control by the applicant available for inclusion in the PUD. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The PUD was originally approved and developed before many of the current LDC provisions and standards were established. Appropriate development standards for the residential development option have been included. 10.02.08 - Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas F. Nature of requirements of Planning Commission report. When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findi ngs, when applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The MPUD, as proposed, is consistent with the companion small-scale plan amendment, which permits residential and mixed-use projects within the MPUD and increased density on a 10 acre portion of the site as identified in the Activity Center #16 Map exhibit to t he FLU Element. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 8 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 2. The existing land use pattern. The subject property is located at the intersection of two arterial roadways. The properties located to the east, west and north are zoned for commercial development. Properties to the south are zoned residential and are developed with single-family homes. Buffers are proposed consistent with the LDC to insure compatibility of uses. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The MPUD for property permitting the residential development option is under the ownership of the applicant and therefore no isolated district is being created. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The boundaries are not illogically drawn and comprise all of the property under the unified control of the applicant. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The property is currently zoned Courthouse Shadows CPUD, which does not permit the proposed residential and mixed-use project uses. The PUD amendment is necessary to add the residential development option. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The MPUD document includes development standards to insure that it is compatible with the immediately surrounding properties. The MPUD master plan identifies appropriate buffers and open spaces, which will further insure that the development of the mixed-use option will have no adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Access to the project will be from U.S. 41. An existing single access from Peter’s Avenue will remain. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. A traffic impact analysis has been submitted in support of the proposed PUD amendment. No level of service issues have been identified and the site will have access to a signalized Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 9 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com intersection at U.S. 41. The character of traffic will not be discernably different than that historically permitted for the subject property. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The project will be required to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) through the South Florida Water Management District. The ERP review evaluates historic surface water flows and controls the off-site discharge of stormwater from the site. The project will hav e internal water management facilities including detention areas to control the drainage for the project. No drainage issues will result from this project. The Project is a redevelopment project located in the Bayshore Gateway Redevelopment Area. The property is currently built as a commercial shopping center with existing commercial outparcels that discharges stormwater runoff into Haldeman Creek, which is a tidally influenced waterway. The Project will be designed to maintain existing drainage patterns and provide the required water quality treatment onsite as outlined in Collier County Ordinance 2017-09. The post development discharge rate will not exceed that of the current predevelopment discharge rate of the commercial shopping center. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Given the limitation on building heights, setbacks, and buffering, there will be no reduction in light or air for adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The MPUD rezone proposes to establish a residential development option. The uses are controlled by development standards in the MPUD document, which provide setbacks from adjacent properties. Development subject to the MPUD standards will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. All immediately adjacent properties to the south and east are developed and the addition of multi-family residential within this PUD should not be a deterrent to improvement or redevelopment of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 10 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com The MPUD rezone is a companion to a small-scale growth management plan amendment. This process does not grant a special privilege to a property owner and the process is consistent with the process outlined in Chapter 163, F.S. for amendments to growth management plan. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The existing zoning is CPUD, which does not permit residential or mixed-use development. The amendment is necessary to establish residential land use within the MPUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed rezone is in scale with the needs of the neighborhood and Collier County. The County has a demand for more multi-family dwelling units. The central location and proximity to the Collier County government complex makes this an ideal mixed-use site. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. It is not impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for residential uses; however, this site has existing infrastructure including roads, water, and sewer available to serve the project, and is located in an Activity Center where mixed-use projects are encouraged. A market analysis was prepared for the small-scale amendment, which concludes that there is demand for the proposed rental apartment option. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The subject property is a variety of commercial buildings. The area proposed for residential uses has been developed for commercial uses and these buildings would be razed in order to construct the mixed-use development option. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. There are adequate roadways and utilities available at the site. There are no public facilities deficiencies at the present time and none will occur as a result of this project. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 11 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The project is consistent with the proposed small-scale Growth Management Plan for Activity Center #16 and it is compatible with surrounding development. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) BL (Blasting Permit) BD (Boat Dock Extension) Carnival/Circus Permit CU (Conditional Use) EXP (Excavation Permit) FP (Final Plat LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) PNC (Project Name Change) PPL (Plans & Plat Review) PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) PUD Rezone RZ (Standard Rezone) SDP (Site Development Plan) SDPA (SDP Amendment) SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) SIP (Site Im provement Plan) SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) SNR (Street Name Change) SNC (Street Name Change – Unplatted) TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) VA (Variance) VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPT ION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) SDP - or AR or PL # SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 1 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please Return Approved Checklist By: Email Personally picked up Applicant Name: Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Fax Email/Fax:Phone: Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 2 of 2 ParcelID 28750000028 28750000523 28750000727 28750000743 28750000769 30480040100 00391520008 00391440007 Name1 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP MK REALTY 3440 TAMIAMI TRL LLC KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC CHRISSY'S AT COURTHOUSE SUNSHINE REAL ESTATE HLDS LLLP StreetNumber 3290 3420 3400 3440 3260 3340 3396 FullStreet TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E T A MIA MI T R L EAIRPORT PULLING RD SSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Courthouse Shadows CPUDAerial Location Map SubjectProperty . 590 0 590295 Feet Tami ami TRL EGordon STBamboo DREspinal BLVD Peters AVEAreca AVE Collee CT Airport RD SCaloosa STTami ami LNCanal STCherokee STBasin STOkeechobee STOsc eo l a AV E Captains CV Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Courthouse Shadows MPD Location Map Subject Property . 380 0 380190 Feet COURTHOUSE SHADOWS Environmental Due Diligence P REPARED FOR: J OHNSON D EVELOPMENT A SSOCIATES 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400 Spartanburg, SC 29306 PREPARED BY: TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34104 AMENDED J ANUARY 31, 2019 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Site Description .................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 FLUCFCS Codes ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Vegetation Associations ............................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Hydrologic Indicators................................................................................................................ 4 3 Photos .................................................................................................................................................. 5 4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................ 7 5 Jurisdictional Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 9 6 Permitting .......................................................................................................................................... 10 7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 1 1 INTRODUCTION Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. (THA) has conducted a preliminary site evaluation on several parcels located at 3290 Tamiami Trail East, Naples. The parcel folio numbers are 28750000028, 28750000523, 28750000769, and 30480040100. The properties are approximately 18.74 acres combined and located in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County. The purpose of the Due Diligence Report is to review existing environmental conditions relating to the properties and to identify issues that may impact the development potential of the site. Specifically, the field work and research conducted was; • To map and identify existing vegetative communities on the property. • To estimate the extent of state and federal jurisdictional wetlands. • To research the presence or absence of state and federal listed species. • To assess the environmental permitting requirements for construction of residential development. This assessment did not research or consider zoning, deed restrictions, easements, or other encumbrances that might be present and could affect the development of the property. This assessment also did not include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment which can identify potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. This assessment was limited to the wetland and wildlife environmental factors only and is presented solely to assist with the planning process. Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 2 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is comprised of four parcels, three of which have been cleared and impacted by past and current commercial development and the fourth parcel including the canal and drainage easement at the south end of the site. The site has been developed since the early 1990’s with the current buildings. For the purpose of this report, vegetative communities and other land uses are combined between the parcels. It appears as though there were no wetland impacts associated with the development in the 1990’s. No SFWMD ERP permit could be located for the project. The majority of the soils within the site are mapped as Immokalee Fine Sand with a small area of Basinger Fine Sand in the southeast corner of the site. Basinger Fine Sand is a hydric soil, but Immokalee Fine Sand is not. Vegetative communities are remnant only with the majority of the vegetation present consisting of various planted landscaping components. The perimeter of the site contains moderately heavy exotic vegetation including Brazilian pepper along most of the west and south perimeter and scattered Australian pines, Java plum, and phragmites in the southwest border of the site. There is a mangrove fringe separating the development from Haldeman creek which consists predominately of red mangroves and Brazilian pepper. There is also a drainage easement associated with Haldeman Creek Running along the south boundary of the project site. See attached FLUCFCS map for location within the site of the different habitats. 2.1 FLUCFCS Codes The Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) manual was used to classify all of the vegetative communities occurring within the site boundaries. The attached FLUCFCS exhibit shows the subject property, its vegetative cover, and depicts the approximate limits of the wetland and upland areas. A general description is provided below in Table 1 along with any site-specific nuances that may be relevant to the assessment. Table 1: FLUCFS Codes found on-site FLUCFCS Code Description Acres Jurisdictional Wetlands 141 Retail sales and services 16.07 No 190 Open Lands in Urban Setting 0.54 No 510 Streams and Waterways (Haldeman Creek) 1.08 Yes 612E2 Mangrove Swamp (Fringe) 1.05 Yes Total 18.74 2.2 Vegetation Associations The mangrove fringe habitat along the south boundary is the only natural native habitat remaining on the property. Vegetative communities in Florida designated as Mangrove Swamp typically occur in such a way that red, white, or black mangroves dominate the canopy and Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 3 midstory while very little vegetation is present in the ground cover. This site is situated along the man-made portion of Haldeman Creek and is dominated by red mangroves. This site habitat is becoming slightly overgrown with exotics and has a very limited understory. A list of commonly observed plant species within this community can be found below in Table 2. Table 2: Commonly observed species found within the Mangrove Fringe Community Common Name Scientific Name Stratum Dominant Red mangrove Rhizophora mangle C, M Yes Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolia C No Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto M No Leather fern Acrostichum danaeifolium G No Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia V No C = canopy stratum, M = midstory stratum, G = ground stratum, V = woody vine stratum The remainder of the vegetation outside of the mangrove fringe is all planted vegetation serving as buffer or landscape material throughout the development. A list of commonly observed plant species within this community can be found below in Table 3. Table 3: Commonly observed species found within the landscape and buffer portions of the site Common Name Scientific Name Stratum Location Slash pine Pinus elliottii C Southern perimeter berm Live Oak Quercus virginiana C Throughout site Java Plum Syzygium cumini C, M Southern Perimeter berm, outfall area Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto C, M Throughout site Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolia M, G Western and southern perimeter Coco plum Chysobalanus icaco M Western perimeter Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia V Western and southern perimeter C = canopy stratum, M = midstory stratum, G = ground stratum, V = woody vine stratum There are two wet detention basins located on the western portion of the site. These basins are interconnected with each other and do maintain wetland vegetation. A list of observed plant species within the basins can be found below in Table 4. Table 4: Commonly observed species found within the dry retention basins Common Name Scientific Name Stratum Location Alligator flag Thalia geniculate G North retention basin Wedelia Sphagneticola trilobata G Both retention basins Maidencane Panicum hemitomon G Both retention basins Pickerelweed Pontedaria cordata G Both retention basins Spikerush Eleocharis cellulose G South retention basin False Buttonweed Spermacoce verticullata G Both retention basins C = canopy stratum, M = midstory stratum, G = ground stratum, V = woody vine stratum 2.3 Soils According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are 3 types of soil mapped within the project site. Immokalee Fine Sand, which is a non-hydric soil, is mapped through the majority of the property. A small triangle of the site in the southeast corner is Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 4 mapped Basinger Fine Sand, which is a hydric soil. The mangrove fringe and creek are at the south of the site are mapped as Durbin and Wulfert Mucks which is a hydric soil. Soil plugs were taken in the open habitats of the site to determine if hydric soil characteristics are present. Within the open urban areas, the soils were disturbed and heavily compacted with rock and shell present. No hydric indicators were visible within these areas. The soils at the bottoms of the retention basins both had a shallow much layer indicative of hydric conditions which is to be expected as their design is to hold water. See the attached soils map for the extent of the soil units across the property 2.4 Hydrologic Indicators Hydrologic indicators were only observed on this site within the retention basins and drainage swale. Tidal lines were also observed along Haldeman creek in the mangrove fringe. Water lines and algal matting were both observed within the detention basins. It is clear that water does stand in the retention basins for extended periods of time. See photos in Section 3 for examples of hydrologic indicators. Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 5 3 PHOTOS Photo 1: Trees and debris from open lands in northwest corner of the site Photo 2: Non-hydric soil profile from open lands. Photo 3: Depression with Thalia adjacent to outfall structure in north retention basin Photo 4: Overgrown structure connection between north and south retention basins. Photo 5: Outfall structure from parking areas into drainage swale. Photo 6: Drainage swale between south retention basin and overflow structure. Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 6 Photo 7: Overflow structure at east end of drainage swale. Only functions at flood stage Photo 8: Outfall pipe from overflow structure and splash wall at rip-rap outfall into creek. Photo 9: Rip-rap outfall from project site into Haldeman Creek along south boundary. Photo 10: Potential Gopher tortoise burrow next to overflow structure at east end of drainage swale. Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 7 4 WILDLIFE Endangered Wildlife Species is defined as any species of fish or wildlife naturally occurring in Florida, whose prospects of survival are in jeopardy due to modification or loss of habitat; over- utilization for commercial, sporting, scientific or educational purposes; disease; predation; inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (FS 372.072). Threatened species include any species of fish or wildlife naturally occurring in Florida which may not be in immediate danger of extinction, but which exists in such small populations as to become endangered if it is subjected to increased stress as a result of further modification of its environment. Species of Special Concern are animals that: 1) Have a significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human disturbance, or human exploitation which, in the foreseeable future, may result in its becoming a threatened species unless appropriate protective or management techniques are initiated or maintained, 2) Data are limited or lacking, 3) May occupy such an unusually vital or essential ecological niche that should it decline significantly in numbers or distribution other species would be adversely affected to a significant degree, 4) Has not sufficiently recovered from a past population depletion. Taking into account the location and condition of the property, and conversations with state and federal agency personnel, listed wildlife species that could potentially be found on or around the site include: A full blown Threatened and Endangered Species survey was not done and should not be required due to the existing conditions of the property and existing surrounding developments. Initial investigations around the property did discover one potential gopher tortoise burrow located along the southern border of the project site in the old perimeter berm close to the stormwater overflow. The burrow is located at coordinates N 26 07.429, W 081 45.924. See Exhibit with burrow location and Photo 10 in Section 3 of this report. It appeared as though this was a relatively new burrow which did show signs of recent activity. If the proposed redevelopment Common Name Scientific Name Status Florida Bonneted Bat Eumops floridanus E Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea T Tri-colored Heron Egretta tricolor T Wood Stork Mycteria americana E Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC Indigo Snake Drymarchon couperi T Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus T Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 8 of the project impacts this area, a permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) will be required to relocate the burrow. During the site visits no other potential listed species presence was observed. It is assumed that wading birds could and do utilize the mangrove shoreline along Haldeman Creek for foraging activities. The proposed redevelopment is not expected to impact the mangrove shoreline and so would not impact this use. Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 9 5 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS The definitions in 33CFR 328.3 state that “waters of the United States” include interstate “wetlands” which are defined as those areas “inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Based on Version 2.0 of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, the only portions of the project site which meets the definition of a wetland are the two retention basins and the shoreline fringe along Haldeman Creek. The retention basins are man-made structures which were created out of historically upland habitat and which are an integral part of the surface water management system for the development. Permitting of the redevelopment will require review and authorization from the SFWMD. We believe that the USACE will not assert jurisdiction over the stormwater retention areas due to the fact that they are man-made, they were constructed out of uplands for the stormwater management system, and they are isolated from direct connection to “Waters of the US” by the overflow structure. The USACE will assert jurisdiction over Haldeman Creek and the adjacent shoreline mangroves. A Nationwide Permit will likely be required from the Corps to repair or upgrade the outfall structure from the development into the Creek which currently appears to be in need of maintenance (See Photo 9 in Section 3 above). See the attached FLUCFCS map for the approximate extent of the wetland areas. Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 10 6 PERMITTING Based on the document research conducted to date, we could find no evidence of prior SFWMD or USACE permitting for the project. It is assumed that this project was permitted by Collier County back when the County had the delegation of authority to do so for smaller projects with no wetland impacts. No USACE or SFWMD Environmental Resource Permits were found. Environmental / Wetland SFWMD (State review) - The redevelopment plan will impact the existing surface water management system and will require permitting for the proposed changes. The wetland impacts that would potentially require mitigation would be the relocation or improvement of the outfall from the development into the creek. We would anticipate any impacts associated with this to be very minor and could be mitigated through improvements to the remainder of the shoreline. USACE (Federal review) – If the redevelopment does require relocation or improvements to the stormwater outfall into the creek, then a Nationwide permit from the Corps will be required for modifications to the existing stormwater management system (Nationwide #43). There is no direct connection between the existing stormwater detention basins and the Creek. They are separated by the overflow structure. Therefore we do not believe that the Corps will assert jurisdiction over the retention basins and no USACE permitting will be required for the reconfiguration or elimination of the two retention basins. FWS (Federal Listed Species review) – Since this is the redevelopment of an already developed property, no additional impacts to any listed species would occur. A preconstruction nesting survey may be required to insure that no wading bird or osprey nests are present in any trees that may be removed. Docks No mention was made as to whether or not docks would be a part of the redevelopment. Since the project is on Haldeman Creek, docks should be an allowed use. Water depths and the width of the waterway would limit the number and types of vessels that could moor. And docks or water access would require additional permitting with the SFWMD and the Corps. Collier County The County requires preservation of existing native habitat within a PUD to meet the Land Development Code. If the zoning on these parcels is changed to residential, it is anticipated that the County will require preservation of a portion of the existing native habitat. Since this would be a residential or mixed-use development within the Coastal High-Hazard area a minimum of 25% of the existing native habitat will need to be preserved. It is not known if the County will include the native landscape buffer along the southern boundary within native habitat calculations or exactly where the Drainage Easement for Haldeman Creek is in relationship to the vegetation but assuming a worst-case scenario, a minimum of 25% of the shoreline and buffer would need to be preserved to meet the native vegetation retention requirements. Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 11 7 CONCLUSION Based on the preliminary site assessment and document research conducted, we believe that wetland permitting will be limited to the relocation or improvements to the stormwater outfall structure from the development into the Creek. If docks are proposed, then additional state and federal permitting will be required for the docks. A gopher tortoise relocation permit may be required if the burrow observed remains active and the proposed redevelopment impacts the area within 25 feet of where the burrow is located. Redevelopment will likely require native habitat preservation for the County which would result in a conservation easement over at least 25% of the shoreline mangroves (assuming that they are not within the existing drainage easement). Based on current USACE review timeframes, between 4 and 8 months should be allowed for the federal permitting effort for the Nationwide permit (if required). State permitting should be accomplished concurrently with the federal permitting. STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY AERIAL VICINITY MAPSTATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY AERIAL VICINITY MAPNOTES:<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SUBJECTPROPERTYSUBJECTPROPERTY<> LATITUDE:N 26.124865<> LONGITUDE:W 81.765841SITE ADDRESS:<> 3290 TAMIAMI TRNAPLES, FL 34112Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg LOCATION 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERLOCATION MAP50-------------------01 OF 04COLLIER COUNTYCOLLIER COUNTY)7.(1(/':+%1)7.(1(/':+%18588288641MARCOISLANDEVERGLADESCITY9329846NAPLES90908399483783784129292983983992887846951862I-758486431856850846890896NESWKEY WESTTAMPAFT.MYERSMIAMINAPLESSUBJECTPROPERTY NESW0100200400SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg FLUCFCS 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERFLUCFCS MAP50-------------------02 OF 04UPLAND (ACRES):WETLAND (ACRES):PROJECT (ACRES):·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE."NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYFLUCFCSDESCRIPTIONAREA(AC)141RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES15.86510DITCH1.08612E2MANGROVE SWAMPS (EXOTICS 25-50%)1.26TOTAL18.20TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)PETERS AVENUE141190612E2510612E218.2015.861.26WETLAND (ACRES):1.08SUBJECTPROPERTYAPPROXIMATEWETLAND LINE NESW0150300600SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg SOILS 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERSOILS MAP50-------------------03 OF 04·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.·SOIL DATA PROVIDED BY:1998 UNITED STATES DEPT OF AGRICULTURESOIL SURVEY OF COLLIER COUNTY AREA, FL"NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYCODEDESCRIPTIONHYDRIC7IMMOKALEE FINE SAND17BASINGER FINE SANDYES34URBAN LAND-IMMOKALEE-OLDSMAR,LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, COMPLEX40DURBIN AND WULFERT MUCKS,FREQUENTLY FLOODEDYES3471740TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)PETERS AVENUESUBJECTPROPERTY NESW0100200400SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg SPECIES 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERLISTED SPECIES MAP50-------------------04 OF 04·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE."NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYTAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)PETERS AVENUESUBJECTPROPERTYACTIVE GOPHER TORTOISE BURROWACTIVE GOPHERTORTOISEBURROWAPPROXIMATEWETLAND LINE 1 Sharon Umpenhour From:Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:53 AM To:Kristina Johnson Cc:Chase Williston; Rob Sucher Subject:RE: Courthouse Shadows - FDOT Safety Audit of 2015 Kristina, In review of the tentative 5-year work program (2020-2024), I show the following project are within the area of your project: 1. Resurfacing project- US 41 from SR 84 (Davis Blvd) to Courthouse Shadows 2. Intersection safety project - US 41 and Peters Street / Airport Pulling Road I can’t provide the exact years as the work program is tentative and has not been adopted yet, but these are the projects I’m showing right now. I would also add, there may be additional off-site improvements on US 41 directly related to this project, this review would occur at the time of permitting, when the department has an opportunity to review the proposed site plan, traffic impact study and intersection analysis. Hope this information is helpful, if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. Mark Clark Access Management Specialist FDOT SWIFT SunGuide Center 10041 Daniels Parkway Fort Myers, Florida 33913 mark.clark@dot.state.fl.us (239) 225 -1984 From: Kristina Johnson [mailto:KJohnson@jreeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 12:15 PM To: Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Cc: Chase Williston <cwilliston@johnsondevelopment.net>; Rob Sucher <rsucher@johnsondevelopment.net> Subject: Courthouse Shadows - FDOT Safety Audit of 2015 2 EXTERNAL SENDER: Use caution with links and attachments. Mark, I hope all is well. If you recall I am working with a multi-family client on re-zoning the Courthouse Shadows property in Naples to include residential. As part of our re-zoning the County asked about any proposed FDOT improvements along US-41 and Peters, specifically from the attached Safety Audit, we need to align with or show. If you recall, you and I discussed some access improvements to the northernmost access from Courthouse Shadows to US-41, see attached email correspondence, which is fairly wide (approximately 130’). Specifically we discussed retrofitting this driveway when the project comes in for permitting. I’m not sure it would be appropriate to show anything in our re-zoning for this access since we haven’t agreed on a design yet and we probably will not submit the FDOT permit until after the zoning is approved. Other than the improvements to the northernmost access can you please let me know if FDOT has any other improvements proposed in this area that would be beneficial to show in our re-zoning? I appreciate your help and feel free to reach out with any questions. Thanks, Kristina M. Johnson, P.E. Director of Land Development J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. 9351 Corkscrew Road, Suite 102 Estero, Florida 33928 o: 239.405.9148 c: 239.285.6999 www.jrevansengineering.com COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER PROVISION: This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail. The electronic data contained herein may be subject to change without notice. The responsibility for the accuracy of current conditions and/or digital transfers is solely that of the user. Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [√] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. Project Information: Project Name: ___________________________________________ Municipality: _________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact inform ation is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Em ail_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III. Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ Courthouse Shadows MPUD Collier County 28750000028, 28750000523 and 28750000769 3290 and 3420 Tamiami Trail East Airport Road and Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239.947.1144 warnold@gradyminor.com January 22, 2019 Activity Center #16 Activity Center #16 Courthouse Shadows CPUD Courthouse Shadows MPUD 0 300 4 Worksheet is required to be completed by the Applicant only if the project is to be phased: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF MF MH C G Totals by Yr Grand Total Grand Total Insert totals by unit type by years. Unit Types: SF = Single Family MF = Multi-Family/Apartments MH = Mobile Homes C = Condo/Co-Op G = Government EXAMPLE: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF 25 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MF 50 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MH N/A C N/A G N/A Totals by Yr 75 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Grand Total 150 . 2 Types of Reviews: School Impact Analysis: This review should be divided into two categories: - School Capacity Review (land use and rezonings), and; - Concurrency Determinations (site plans and subdivisions). School Capacity Review is the review of a project in the land use and rezoning stage of development. It is a review of the impact of the development on school capacity and is considered long range planning. This may be a review resulting in mitigation being required. In situations where the applicant may be required to mitigate, capacity may be reserved dependent on the type of mitigation. Concurrency Determination is the review of residential site plans and subdivisions to determine whether there is available capacity. When capacity is determined to be available a School Capacity Determination Letter (SCADL) will be issued verifying available capacity to the applicant and the local government. If a project exceeds the adopted level of service standards, the applicant is afforded the option of a negotiation period that may or may not result in an executed/recorded mitigation agreement Mitigation at this stage is expressed as a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. For those residential developments that may have an impact but are otherwise exempt from concurrency, an exemption letter will be prepared for the applicant upon request. For those residential developments that are determined to not have an impact, a letter of no impact will be prepared for the applicant upon request. Exemption Letter: An applicant may request an Exemption Letter as documentation for the local government. These are projects that would be exempt from school concurrency review or projects that do not impact the public schools. Exemptions from school concurrency are limited to existing single family or mobile home lots of record; amendments to previously approved site plans or plats that do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type; age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18; or residential site plans or plats or amendments to site plans or plats that generate less than one student; or are authorized as a Development of Regional Impact (Chapter 380, F.S.) as of July 1, 2005. Concurrency Determination Amendment: An applicant may request an amendment to a previously issued School Concurrency Determination or to an application being processed. This review may require additional staff time beyond the initial concurrency determination review and results in a modified determination being issued. An amendment could result in a negotiation period and/or a mitigation agreement being issued or a previously approved determination being modified and reissued. 3 Tami ami TRL EGordon STBamboo DREspinal BLVD Peters AVEAreca AVE Collee CT Airport RD SCaloosa STTami ami LNCanal STCherokee STBasin STOkeechobee STOsc eo l a AV E Captains CV Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Courthouse Shadows MPD Location Map Subject Property . 380 0 380190 Feet Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 1 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Deviations 1 through 10 were previously approved for Exhibit A Master Plan by Ordinance 2016- 45 at the December 13, 2016 BCC Hearing. Deviation 7 is being modified to include residential signage. Deviations 11 through 17 are new and being requested for the residential development option. 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off -street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10’x20’ (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. Justification: The Sam’s Club currently has a square footage of approximately 143,000 s.f. According to the code for this size of a store a total of 7 loading docks would be required. Sam’s currently shows a total of 5 loading docks (12’ wide by 90’ long), based on business knowledge and historical information this number of loading docks is more than adequate to operate the business. Sam’s Club operates their own vehicle fleet and controls the timing of all truck deliveries. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet a shared 15’ landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately owned lotsplatted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. Justification: The existing conditions are such that the landscape buffers do not exist betwee n the parent tract and outparcels. The redevelopment plan for this PUD, is to provide the buffers on the opposite side of the drive aisle from the outparcels. This area provides an average of at least an 8’ wide planting area and is even greater in some ar eas, which is an adequate width to permit landscape plantings. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 2 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5’ wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. Justification: The existing water management systems are within the required yard buffers and the redevelopment of this PUD requires additional water management system. The water management areas will have planting shelfs along the perimeter to support the required landscaping within the buffers as depicted on the attached exhibi ts. This will also permit existing mature buffers varying in width, which do not consistently meet the 20’ wide minimum for activity centers adjacent to roadways. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of park ing spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. Justification: There are existing areas in the shopping center in the n orthern part of the site that is not being redeveloped at this time where there are currently more than ten parking spaces in a row without a landscaping island. The development is requesting to leave those areas as is if there are no impacts planned. All new parking areas will provide landscape islands per the current LDC requirements. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6’ away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. Justification: The required fence or wall already exists in many places along the existing property line with established landscaping and buffering. The redevelopment proposes to leave those areas that are established so as not to disturb the existing buffer and supplement areas as needed with additional landscape material so as maximize the water management system area and landscaping buffers on the site. The placement of the fence on the property line will also allow security and safety for nearby residents by creating a barrier from the projects surface water management system. This is depicted on the attached exhibit. 6. WITHDRAWN Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 3 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with, which permits on-premise directory signs for multi-occupancy parcels with a minimum of 8 independent units containing 20,000 square feet of leasable floor area to allow the existing directory signs to be utilized to identify the residential component of the mixed-use PUD and to have fewer than 8 tenants identified on the signage panels and at the existing height of 25’ to remain. Justification: This deviation is justified as the LDC signage standards do not contain standards for signage where a PUD is developed as a mixed-use project. The applicant would utilize existing sign structures to add residential identification in addition to commercial uses, which have existing use rights to the signage that was rebuilt in 2018 following damage occurring due to Hurricane Irma. The deviation provides for a logical use of the existing signage wherein the Code is otherwise silent on signage for mixed-use. 8. WITHDRAWN 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15’ with an average width of 20’ as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. However, tree plantings shall not be placed over or within six feet of any public water, reclaimed water, or sewer utility lines and shall not interfere with any County or state traffic control devices or access to all county or state traffic control equipment and devices and utilities. Whenever plantings obstruct the ingress and/or egress for the purposes of the easement they shall be removed upon request by the City of Naples, county or state, and in the event of failure by the owner to so move them, the city, county or state may do so and the expense of same charged to the property owner. When plantings placed over utility lines cause damage to the utilities systems, the property owner shall bear the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged utilities. Justification: The existing project perimeter buffer for the developed portion of the project varies from approximately 13 feet in width to 20 feet, The deviation will permit the property owner to install a buffer more consistent with that immediately adjacent to the 0.28± acre par cel being added to the PUD. Please see Deviation #9 Buffer Exhibit. 10. WITHDRAWN Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 4 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 11. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow no buffers on the commercial outparcels adjacent to the internal access road. Justification: The applicant is not proposing changes to the existing commercial outparcels that front US-41 with this request. The existing commercial outparcels are platted lots in which many of the outparcels have existing buildings. For reference, the commercial outparcels are highlighted in yellow, the primary access road is highlighted in blue, and the redevelopment area is highlighted in green in the “Deviation 11 Exhibit” located on the following page. The purpose of this request is that the existing commercial outparcels that front US-41 could be subject to providing a 10’-Type “D” buffer on their property in the event that they redevelop or modify their site plans. This places an unfair burden on the commercial outparcels that have existing buildings and improvements on their properties. The existing improvements extend up to the primary access road leaving no room for an additional 10’-wide buffer without major impacts. The applicant requests that the existing commercial outparcels shall not be subject to providing a landscape buffer on their properties where adjacent to the primary access road. Since this request is internal to the Mixed Use planned development there are no negative impacts anticipated. Please reference the “Deviation 11 Exhibit” on the following page for more detail on the request. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 5 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 6 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 12. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow a 5’-wide Type “D” buffer on the property located on the south side of the primary access road. Justification: The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing parent tract of the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development either into new commercial or multi-family residential. The redevelopment is proposed for the property located south of the existing primary access road. Both redevelopment options propose to retain the primary access road. The commercial redevelopment option would plan to also retain the existing parking configuration on the south side of the access road. The existing parking configuration includes parking lot drive aisles that intersect with the existing access road only leaving room for a terminal landscape island in the parking area. These existing terminal landscape islands vary in width and are 5’ wide on average. As previously mentioned, the multi-family residential option proposes to retain the existing access road and also add perpendicular parking spaces and a pedestrian sidewalk on the south side of the access road. The intent of retaining the access road is to integrate the residential community with the existing commercial outparcels to create a cohesive community. The code required 10’-wide Type “D” buffer between the existing access road and multi-family residential pushes the residential furth er away from the commercial and would work against the intent to have an integrated, cohesive community. Therefore, the applicant requests to reduce this buffer from 10’-wide to a minimum of a 5’- wide on the property to the south of the primary access road. The location of the requested deviation is internal to the Courthouse Shadows mixed-use development and no negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this request. Please reference the “Deviation 12 Exhibit” on the following pages which better i llustrates the request. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 7 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 8 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 9 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 13. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, which requires that Type “D” buffers be located adjacent to any primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow the buffer to be placed a maximum of 25’ from the south side of the primary access road. Justification: The applicant is proposing a multi-family residential redevelopment option on the property located on the south side of the existing access road. The multi-family redevelopment option seeks to provide perpendicular parking spaces placed directly on the south side of the existing access road that would be accessible by any vehicle utilizing the access road and patrons of the commercial outparcels and residents of the community. The additional parking would be placed perpendicular to the existing access road and a pedestrian sidewalk would be placed along the back of the parking spaces. Standard parking spaces are 18’-deep and pedestrian sidewalks are typically 5’-wide for a total distance of 23’. Please reference the “Deviation 13 Exhibit” for more detail on the request. Code requires that the Type “D’ buffer be placed adjacent to the access road however with the proposed parking and sidewalk this is not attainable. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Type “D” buffer be allowed to be placed a maximum of 25’ from the edge of pavement of the existing access road which is the 23’ as mentioned above plus an extra 2’ to allow some flexibility with the sidewalk width . This request is being made in order to provide additional parking areas for the commercial outparcels along with a pedestrian sidewalk internal to the PUD. There are no negative impacts anticipated as a result of this request. Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 10 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 11 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com 14. Deviation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Tab le 1, Dimensional Requirements in the BMUD-NC, to allow the multi-family residential portion of the PUD to establish their own residential development types and dimensional standards as set forth in this PUD. Justification: The applicant is proposing specific dimensional standards for the development within this planned unit development request. Therefore LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1. shall not apply. 15. Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G Table 17, Parking Space Requirements – Multi-family Dwellings, which allows parking to be provided at 50 percent of normal requirements, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouse, to instead allow the 50 percent reduction of normal requirements for golf courses/ clubhouse uses. Justification: The applicant is proposing a multi-family redevelopment option for the parent property located in the Courthouse Shadows PUD. The multi -family project would include a private clubhouse for the residents to use on the property. Due to confusion on parking requirements for Multi-family clubhouses a Staff Clarification was issued under SC 2005-02. In SC 2005-02, Multi-family Dwellings are required to calculate their clubhouse parking per the requirements of LDC Section 4.05.04 Table 17 for “Golf Course.” It was also determine d in SC 2005-02 that Multi-family clubhouses were not allowed to take a 50 percent reduction from the parking requirements for clubhouses that is a reduction granted for other recreational facilities within Multi-family communities. The Project is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Overlay, which was established to provide incentives to encourage private sector investment into the urban area. Additionally, the multi-family redevelopment project has been designed to provide pedestrian interconnectivity between the commercial and residential uses along with additional parking areas along the access road. The requested parking deviation is consistent with redevelopment projects and with other residential projects that have private clubhouses. The applicant wishes to provide parking for the residential option at the following standards: Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 12 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com ORDINANCE NO. 16- 4 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-08, THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND OUTPARCELS BY 18,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 165,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL .35+/- ACRES OF LAND ZONED COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (C-3- GTMUD-MXD) TO THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PUD; BY ADDING A MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE CLUB WITH ASSOCIATED LIQUOR STORE USE AND ANCILLARY FACILITY WITH FUEL PUMPS AS A PERMITTED USE; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN AND ADDING DEVIATIONS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41 AND OPPOSITE AIRPORT PULLING ROAD IN SECTIONS 11, 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 20.35+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZA-PL20120001515] WHEREAS, KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS, LLC represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 1 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 Cq SECTION ONE: ZONING CLASSIFICATION The zoning classification of approximately .35 acres of the herein described real property located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-3-GTMUD-MXD) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district and when combined with the existing Courthouse Shadows PUD provides for a 20.35+/- acre project in accordance with Ordinance No. 92-8, as amended by this Ordinance. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 The Table of Contents of the PUD document attached to Ordinance Number 92-8, PUD is hereby amended as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii STATEMENT OF INTENT iii SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 1-1 SECTION II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2-1 SECTION III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 3-1 EXHIBIT—"A"MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT—"B"LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT—"C"DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT—"D" BUILDING SIGNAGE Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 2 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 r_,, SECTION THREE: AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 The first paragraph of the Statement of Compliance of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit"A"to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to express the interest of Collier Development Corporation KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC to develop 20.0820.3± acres of land located in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO THE STATEMENT OF INTENT OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 The Statement of Intent of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of the developer Collier Development Corporation to commence development of a commercial activity center planned unit of development. It is the intent of the developer Collier Development Corporation to continue the development of architecturally unified commercial establishments built on the project site and on the concept of planned arrangement and unified management control. The unified development approval under the PUD district designation will ensure that the proieet is aesthetically pleasing and functionally efficient. It will allow an efficient pattern of internal circulation to be established, and limited points of vehicular ingress and egress. These functional and aesthetic advantages, which cannot be provided in the conventional strip commercial development configurations, have been maximized and shall be sustained in the approval of this planned unit of development. This planned unit of development shall be limited to specific commercial uses which are compatible with uses permitted within activity centersand inter related to the business, operations of a shopping center. It is the interest of the developer Collier Development Corporation to continue development in accordance with the regulations of this Planned Unit of Development. It is the purpose of this document to set forth the complete plan, regulations and conditions of development along with other information required in accordance with the PUD ordinance. It is further the intent of the developer Collier Development Corporation to commence development once all necessary permits and approvals have been granted. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 3 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 fi SECTION FIVE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.2 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 1.2 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The subject property is currently under the control of Collier Development Corporation, 3003 North Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 33944KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100, Indianapolis, IN 46204. SECTION SIX: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.3 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO ADD ACREAGE Section 1.3 of the PUD Document, attached as "Exhibit A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by: See Exhibit B, Legal Description, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION SEVEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.1 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.1 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for development of the proposed 20.0820.3± acre Planned Unit Development identified on the Master Plan. SECTION EIGHT: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.3 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.3 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.3. USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 4 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 A. Principal Uses: 1. Antique Shops 2. Appliance stores 3. Art studios 4. Art supplies 5. Automobile parts stores 6. Automobile service stations, including facilities with fuel pumps. 7. Bakery shops (including baking incidental to retail or wholesale sales) 8. Banks (branch or main office) and financial institutions 9. Barber and beauty shops 10. Bath supply stores 11. Blueprint shops 12. Bicycle sales and services 13. Book stores 14. Carpet and floor covering sales (including storage and installation) 15. Child care centers 16. Cocktail lounges, commercial recreation (indoor) 17. Clothing stores 18. Commercial schools 19. Confectionery and candy stores 20. Delicatessen; drive-in restaurants, drug stores; dry cleaning shops; dry goods stores and department stores. 21. Electric supply stores 22. Fish stores; florist shops; food markets (including facilities with fuel pumps); furniture stores; furrier shops and fast food restaurants. 23. Gift shops, gourmet shops 24. Hardware stores; health food stores; hobby supply stores; home for the aged 25. Ice cream stores; ice sales; interior decorating showrooms 26. Jewelry stores 27. Laundries, leather goods, and luggage stores; locksmiths and liquor stores 28. Meat market; medical office or clinic for human care; millinery shops; motion picture theater; music stores 29. Membership warehouse club with associated liquor store use and ancillary facility with fuel pumps. The facility with fuel pumps may not be open to the general public and shall be for only members of the membership warehouse club. 2.930. Office (retail or professional); office supply stores 3031. Paint and wallpaper stores; pet shops, pet supply stores; photographic equipment stores; post office 3-1-32. Radio and television sales and service; small appliance stores; shoe sales and repairs; restaurants 3233. Souvenir stores; stationery stores; shopping centers; supermarkets subject to site development plan approval. 3334. Tailor shops; tobacco shops; toy shops; tropical fish stores 3435. Variety stores; veterinary offices and clinics (no outside kenneling) Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 5 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 f 12/14/16 L; 3536. Watch and precision instrument sales and repair 3-637. Any other commercial use of professional service normally allowed in C-3 Zoning District with approval of the Zoning Director as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. SECTION NINE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.4 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.4 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.4 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS F. Minimum internal setback from the additional 0.28± acre FDOT surplus parcel shall be zero (0) feet. SECTION TEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.8 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.8 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.8 SIGNS A. Individual Business Signs: Wall, marquee, or hanging sings signs below the canopy of the shopping eenteiprimary retail building, with an area not more than twenty percent (20%) of the total square footage of the front wall or facade area under the canopy, with a maximum of 250 square feet per rental unit, consistent with the locations shown on Exhibit D - Building Signage. SECTION ELEVEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.2A OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.2A of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 6 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 r A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan as prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Drawing No. 91 223 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., Exhibit "A" Master Plan. The maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels shall not exceed a total of 147,000165,000 square feet. SECTION TWELVE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.5 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.5 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 3.5 WATER MANAGEMENT A. An adequate access easement shall be provided for access through the shopping center to Haldeman Creek. B. Petitioner shall obtain a right-of-way permit for all construction within the Haldeman Creek easement. C. For purposes of stormwater management, the proposed redevelopment project shall be treated as a new development project; therefore, it will comply with the existing offsite allowable discharge rates and retention/ detention criteria, as the date of this PUD amendment approval. SECTION THIRTEEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.6 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.6 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 3.6 TRAFFIC A. The applicant is advised that future development activities are subject to land use controls consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as amended. Such controls may, from time to time, preclude the applicant's ability to initiate, continue and/or to complete the project improvements as presently scheduled. B. The owner, its successors, or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five foot sidewalk along Peter's Avenue up to the sum of$ 50,000.00, which shall represent its payment in-lieu consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02 for the entire site. Owner shall make payment to County within 30 days of approval of the Site Development Plan for the redevelopment. Words struckgh are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 7 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 C. Upon redevelopment of the site with a single large format retail user such as Sam's Club, the owner shall close the southernmost vehicular access to Peters Avenue. The project shall be permitted to have an emergency vehicle only entrance as shown on the Master Plan. D. The proposed new-revised parking island layout and building configuration shown on the master plan are conceptual and are not part of this zoning petition approval. Review and approval of any proposed site changes including but not limited to access entries, parking islands, and drive aisles shall be done at time of site development order (SDP/SDPA) E. The development is limited to the 662 total net new PM peak hour trips utilized in the Traffic Impact Statement dated March 18, 2016. SECTION FOURTEEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.7 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.7 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Text break *** *** *** *** *** H. Native vegetation shall be retained or replanted in accordance with SDP 98-75. As an alternative, the developer may also elect to provide offsite preservation of native vegetation in accordance with the LDC. SECTION FIFTEEN: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO REVISE EXHIBIT "A" MASTER PLAN Exhibit "A" Master Plan of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit "A", Master Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 8 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 SECTION SIXTEEN: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO ADD EXHIBIT "C", DEVIATIONS The PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "C" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended to add the following: See Exhibit"C", Deviations, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION SEVENTEEN: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 34k—day of 1.2.---y, 2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BR K, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA A "1 1.4, i i(Yx: t By: Q By: k Deputy Clerk D NNA FIALA, Chairman St as 0 .K - WN , sign ureonly. ;; t. r 6t a ;R'. Approved as to form and legality: 4A Ci(-- He di Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Master Plan Exhibit B - Legal Description Exhibit C—Deviations including Buffer Exhibit This ordinance filed with the Exhibit D—Building Signage tory of tote s Office thefdoyof G"Y'Y aOl co and acknowledgeme 4,f .dhat fill ree ived this It(-410 day of By .0 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 9 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 iv -... z0.,..z d z m z ya o oom" Ox on 0- D mNrmmz NG) 3( 1N3AvSb31_ o zOmmay o° Z 2 N Z z w p zl no e3' C' rnOmG m Z0Nn omTr 1, O = TZ D C ma< o nmmm Gl m m O v mp Immym, a„ -, D Om 5 m N v• V) Sm0 20 mC4Or0m o 11z8zPci0mr O zz R ^ i, GO o r qGO / 1moM- 73- cP? Zno Z - iamO 0 73 o Na 3 mXZZmmPI mnr- 71m EY mH wH 0 nzy m n 110Zm r .' II n : gm n0 ' r m oop 4/ \'' o s ' BR 16r pi mm D z g; o L. X N d636 4' '>/ 2 Im o 0 Iz F N 0 ' O I m I' o oo y NI A N& A‘ I D ti.;/ Izmm ©/' Ozc c @ 6 rp El NI Z ZN o i. o ml 1, m O 0. 1 t - mov O x ® 5N li og` ; O D m! yAz AI poo 0 oz ooG \ s I pzW 5r G mA C m i ' i P I d Oz F 11 W C F • m C . & LU! p 6 a yOnZ O N 0 2 37.a' N Q - 01< nr o mZDL? nO - op Once r- m TOm nc, A 0 v x I an r Ea A c1 D) rTi C9m co m o n Sa m A r/ z b c m 0 = mo0 D mz in t e tC c0r 0 m I> b m m nz Fe z I u u u 6, o cm Z' l' qco orno mN C o 0 w A o pover I i r_ OX n D I 1 19 1\ z oo 4/ i s. csmwaomOco- venom anon raNacalGramon, m man. wms loon ma Courthouse Shadows PUD Exhibit B Legal Description BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, & 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF COURTHOUSE SHADOWS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 PAGES 40-41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID PLAT FOR THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE S 89° 01' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 838.57 FEET; 2. THENCE N 00° 15' 36" W, A DISTANCE OF 276.13 FEET; 3. THENCE N 89° 59' 12" W, A DISTANCE OF 331.40 FEET; 4. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. THENCE S 89° 28' 37" W, A DISTANCE OF 140.47 FEET; 6. THENCE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 757.17 FEET; 7. THENCE N 89° 15' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.91 FEET; 8. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET; 9. THENCE S 89° 13' 43" W, A DISTANCE OF 138.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF PETERS AVENUE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 56 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 116.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3939, PAGE 463 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE 3) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE N 38° 02' 06" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.66 FEET; 2. THENCE S 82° 55' 44" E, A DISTANCE OF 23.32 FEET; 3. THENCE S 51° 37' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL US 41); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE FOR THE REMAINING COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. S 52° 02' 35" E, A DISTANCE OF 85.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 59' 04", A RADIUS OF 1773.76 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 45° 33' 03" E, 401.11 FEET; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.97 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 2. THENCE S 39° 03' 31" E, A DISTANCE OF 1306.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Page 1 of 1 n. Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off-street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10'x20' (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows a shared 15' landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately owned lots as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5' wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6' away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. 6. WITHDRAWN. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25' to remain. 8. WITHDRAWN 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15' with an average width of 20' as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. However, tree plantings shall not be placed over or within six feet of any public water, reclaimed water, or sewer utility lines and Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20120001515 Last Revised 12/15/2016 Page 1 of 2 Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C shall not interfere with any County or state traffic control devices or access to all county or state traffic control equipment and devices and utilities. Whenever plantings obstruct the ingress and/or egress for the purposes of the easement they shall be removed upon request by the City of Naples, county or state, and in the event of failure by the owner to so move them, the city, county or state may do so and the expense of same charged to the property owner. When plantings placed over utility lines cause damage to the utilities systems, the property owner shall bear the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged utilities. 10. WITHDRAWN. Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL201200015/5 Last Revised 12/15/2016 Page 2 of 2 1 I 110isiiiiimin am , m, i ' 1, 7 r cu y 0 i ,._.,, 41" ------ 1[\___' ..., a . I Cr i CO o 0p N 00 ......._ -O rom... NI a] L m co r-- f- 44. IIIIII I v h 0 11111 G,,,,,,,,, , i,., y Y f 77.3" r, 1, ' .- DO\-\,,. / /// 44.____„,../ 7;..„ Cn i im, 2-.> / co_ 10 aa/ COCN / - // z.,‘ p 7/ / / d L f h„ A..\ i , , z 7. _ Fes! 1 I N., , wo it f j r a fes. N ? D C 0 C < CD NND n ( D C NFt; CD ( D 9' N O_ rn O 3 m• am3 ° mg ' ,, m 3 s v x o m ° X c,_ 0NS N N N O v a N cc) Cr, D NnmO . . OO V - pN — 51 S a c '= O N S C 2 0 D N O N c0 5' L • O 5. ( D cp1 13” Q gi 4. c., CCD `/ Dy' a-. N co = m , fl co D mX a m IIEILA'nC N o , 0N CD 0 a ' O N ( DD o ,-_ CD N ` . N< O a tQ ? n Z 9; 5' vSt S m o w m mo rA 7 OatB v3m F sm yDIIIS tio- S ? CD CO 0 S Q- 0- - 0- 0 g v - 0 - a o CD LA 03c , 74- (,_ 1,). o' DJ n ' O "' c 3 C Q 0 Q- 0.).) o ? 0 < — zx D Q- ch Q_ O D- t N 0 t- n'-' n p 3rt 0 ( ID D t9 ( D n p rr N v C Q h O O rt h n C v Z d p Cm cinD' -•CD AT; rtrta cr nN3 SD- = = 0- D- n m 0 N C) CD C p D - 1 no z i, n. O O e, D i. .- f. N v . r - S O co 00 O S. ( D o' woo' el I r- r v p CD -- CD oil CDD . C N = iii C D V•. z y Tl i O I 7 n o a ` C 0 > ( to 3 ea. 1 _ z v i • y o o Pa' 3n b V 1 r---- \CD C 7 F. Nwttii ,.(,:? i D m Cf) t" and N f Z7 C z trin i n oA i I/ \ / / O D I V V \ v/O z Fri 1:• V il*:. / '...: 1 COC CI b D o Cb ISlbD F O I Z,-- 0) HI 52 O0) O I OGM. LOCAL\ FILES\ PLANNING\ PROJ - PLANNING\ CSPUDA- COURTHOUSE SHADOWS( PL20120001515)\ DRAWINGS\ BUFFER EXHIBIT( REV2). DWG 9/ 26/ 2016 11; 41 AM 0 0 m zp z p n z N N z o u 0fc D O no mO r m g 1 m m 1 i 2 m o m m D K DrTo n1 D Z Z IMO o 1 SI z 0 0z 1 o 0 U1 a N E Q y O s 3 J o CD H 4474 Z S2 Its N 00 2. 0 Cf 00 44/ 440 1 CD o n{ 0IYw r II 0 ro ri I 0 rn 41, 0 v m X an. ' 1, 1 o A7. m D Zp s, OO m m O m m 0 3 1 4 ll% 4, .4;.,„, 410 oowe FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State December 19, 2016 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101-3044 Attention: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 16-45, which was filed in this office on December 19, 2016. Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator ELR/lb R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 www.dos.state.fl.us C/RRRCCC/RRRCCCRRCCC/RRRC/RCCCFILE DATE:COURTHOUSE SHADOWSSIDEWALK CONNECTIVITYSHEET:J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A.9351 CORKSCREW ROAD, SUITE 102ESTERO, FLORIDA 33928PHONE: (239) 405-9148FAX: (239) 288-2537WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM104/201900200'100'SCALE: 1" = 200'NQ:\LAND 2017\466. COURTHOUSE SHADOWS APARTMENTS\00466-01 SITE PLAN DESIGN\00-AUTOCAD\EXHIBITS\0046601E03 - MASTER CONCEPT PLAN\0046600E0304.DWG 4/5/2019 3:36 PM J.R.ENGINEERINGEVANSON-SITE SIDEWALKEXISTING OFFSITESIDEWALK (BLUE)ON-SITE SIDEWALKON-SITESIDEWALK Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com April 17, 2019 RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA), Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and PL20180003658 (PUDA), Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment Dear Sir or Madam: A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC (Applicant) will be held on: Tuesday, May 7, 2019, 6:00 pm at the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board Meeting, Naples Botanical Garden Buehler Auditorium, 4820 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendment and a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Amendment. The GMP amendment proposes to revise language of the Activity Center Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element to allow an additional 12.8 units per acre within 10 acres of the Courthouse Shadows PUD. The CPUD amendment application is a companion application to the GMP amendment and proposes to amend the 20.35+/- acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. The subject property (Courthouse Shadows MPUD) is comprised of approximately 20.35± acres, located the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Airport Road in Sections 11, 12, 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e-mail to: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Sincerely, Sharon Umpenhour Senior Planning Technician RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA), Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and PL20180003658 (PUDA), Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment April 17, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Project Location Map: PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 500' 3/25/2019 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 2947 PETERS AVE INVESTMENT LLC 2210 VANDERBILT RD ATE 1201 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 EASTGATE BLK A LOTS 6 + 7 OR 767 PG 1684 3230 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 9 + 10 3230 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 7 + 8 3230 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34110---1416 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 1-6 INCL 15FT ALLEY LESS R/W DESC IN OR 107 PG 449 3550 SOUTH TRAIL 3550 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC 13,E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT, N 89 DEG E 420FT TO POB, E 286.03FT, SWLY 129.90FT, W ADDORIO, JOHN 3339 BASIN ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5959 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 39 LESS N 15FT, AND LOT 38 ADELA, ARIEL SOCARRAS 3420 CALOOSA ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5932 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 15 OR 544 PG 250 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 4 & 5 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 3 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TRL N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 25 & 26 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TRL N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 27 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 1 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 2 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP, INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 28 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP, INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 29 ASLI, ABBAS AHRABI 98 EAST AVE NAPLES, FL 34108---3420 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 LOT 124 LESS N 1300FT LESS R/W ,ALG WITH BEG AT PT ON NLY R/W US 41, 108.15FT SELY FROM BECK, EDWARD F & BARBARA E 1322 ROUTE 83 CAPE MAY CT HSE, NJ 08210---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 8 BENENATI, JASON D 3324 COLLEE COURT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 E 110FT OF W 220FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL BISSAILLON EST, FAITH 3353 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5900 13 50 25 S 100FT OF PROP DES IN OR 1654 1408 BLACKLIDGE, LISA 3334 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 25 BLACKLIDGE, MICHAEL & ELLEN 486 LAGOON AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34108---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 24 BRAWNER, JAMES C & LEEANN 3097 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5905 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 27 OR 1840 PG 662 BROWN, DONNA 130-04-225TH ST SPRINGFIELD GARD, NY 11413---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 10 BURTON, WILLARD D & PEGGY L 3500 TAMIAMI LN NAPLES, FL 34112---5946 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK C N1/2 OF LOT 5 + ALL LOT 6 OR 631 PG 655 + OR 373 PG 865 CADENHEAD ET UX, ROBERT E 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOTS 10 + 11 OR 334 PG 543 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 9 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 10 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 14 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 13 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 12 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, TARA LEIGH 3434 OSCEOLA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5936 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 11 CARDILLO, JOHN P DANIEL R MONACO 3550 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---4905 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC 13,E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT, N 89 DEG E 706.03FT TO POB, N 89 DEG E 139.60FT, S 38 DEG E CARR, PHILIP R 111 MAHOGANY DR NAPLES, FL 34108---2926 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 9 CARROLL, CINDY PO BOX 990387 NAPLES, FL 34116---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 29 CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF VENICE INC PO BOX 2116 VENICE, FL 34284---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 37-40, LESS THAT PORTION OF LOT 39 AS DESC IN OR 2072 PG 1405 CAZIMIR, YVES 2973 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 32 OR 1851 PG 1825 CHRISSY'S AT COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 2412 PINEWOODS CIR NAPLES, FL 34105---2538 12 50 25 OUTPARCEL 1,COURTHOUSE SHADOWS DESC AS:COMM AT SW CNR OF SEC 12,S 89 DEG E 331.40FT, N 39 DEG COLEMAN II, JAMES E & RACHEL 3148 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 23 & S 10FT OF LOT 22 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 EASTGATE BLK A S 30 FT OF LOT 23 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 12 50 25 PAR 3 COURTHOUSE COMPLEX DESC AS; COMM SW CNR SEC 12, RUN N ALG W SEC LINE 1858.24 FT, E 70 FT TO E LINE COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 12 50 25 COMM SE CNR SEC 12,N ALG W SEC LI 2162.78FT, N 89 DEG E 654.12FT, N 87 DEG E 873FT, S 750FT, S 87 DEG W COLLIER COUNTY % OFFC OF COUNTY ATTORNEY 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E STE 800 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 12 50 25 COMM SW CNR SEC 12,N 89 DEG E 1216.63FT, N 89 DEG E 75FT POB, N 24 DEG E 45FT, S 66 DEG E 80FT, S 24 CONNOLLY, COLLEEN 3501 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 S105FT OF FOLL:PT ON W LI SEC, 865FT S OF NW CNR,E 175FT TO POB, SAID PT ON E LI OF 60FT R/W, CONT E 135FT COURTHOUSE SHADOWS CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS INC % POTEET PROPERTIES PO BOX 10667 NAPLES, FL 34101---667 12 50 25 BEG AT SW COR SEC,RUN N 1213.44FT, S 52 DEG E 167.05FT TO PT OF CURVE, FOLL CURVE 422.10FT TO POB, CONT CRAIG, ROBERT F & KAREN M 131 JORDAN RD EMERSON, NJ 07630---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 16 DENISON, MATTHEW 420 WEBER BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---1638 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 23 DEVARISTE, JEAN E VIERGELENE DEVARISTE 2872 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 5 + 6 OR 1975 PG 363 DEZEGO, TIMOTHY & ROBYN 3367 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 16 OR 1439 PG 1625 DONAUS, ERNEST BERTHUDE FAUGUE 2972 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 11 ELLEN D WERNICK REV TRUST 3388 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 BEG AT A PT 183FT N OF INTERSEC OF N LI OF ARECA AVE + W SEC LI E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT TO POB, ELLEN D WERNICK REV TRUST 3388 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 FROM PT OF INTERSEC OF N LI OF ARECA AVE WITH W SEC LI RUN N 130FT FOR POB, E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S FAIRHOMES PEARL PROPERTIES LLC 10 STATION LN UNIONVILLE L3R 1R4 13 50 25 N100FT OF FOLL: FROM PT ON W LI OF SEC 13- 50-25 DISTANT 865FT S OF NW1/4 CNR OF SEC, RUN E175 FT TO POB, FAWNKY LLC 20533 BISCAYNE BLVD #1238 AVENTURA, FL 33180---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 24 FIRST CHOICE STORAGE LC 4401 GULFSHORE BLVD N # 704 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 1-4,LESS STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING OR 2012 PG 1717 CASE#94-1880-CA PAR 137 FOWLER, JENNIFER C 3422 OSCEOLA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5936 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 12 GALLOWAY, SCOTT & HEATHER 3416 CALOOSA STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 14 GARCIA, ISAAC MEDRANO LETICIA RAMOS GARCIA 2998 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 12 OR 1185 PG 479 GARCON, JEAN L & MARIE A 2947 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 33 OR 1861 PG 178 GERTRUDE L STURGILL TRUST 2898 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 8 GLAUB, MARYANNE 3064 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5928 EASTGATE BLK B S 10FT OF LOT 15, LOT 16 + N 25FT LOT 17 GRACIA, ANTHONY 3160 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 10 GRACIA, ANTHONY P 3160 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 9-PLAT-DB 39-194 HANDELMAN, LUCILE 1527 GULF COAST DR NAPLES, FL 34110---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS 1/2 INT LOT 35 HARVEY, MARIAN D 2897 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5961 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS 1/2 INT LOT 35 HERBERT, CHARLES N & ANNA K 3500 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5902 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F N 45 FT OF LOT 6 & S 30 FT OF LOT 7 OR 789 PG 238 HOLMES, LILLIE 3412 CALOOSA ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 13 HUGHES, SHARON K 3416 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5948 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 9 + N 15FT OF LOT 8 OR 764 PG 1825 I E C RENTAL INC 3994 MERCANTILE AVE NAPLES, FL 34104---0 13 50 25 COMM AT NW CNR SEC 13 , E 331.37FT, S 281.88, N 89DEG E 150FT TO POB N 89DEG E 100FT, S 182.72FT, N 89DEG W I E C RENTALS INC 3994 MERCANTILE AVE NAPLES, FL 34104---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 11 OR 1136 PG 2026 INGROSSO, ANGELA MARCO ZANETTI 3124 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5918 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 11, AND COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 21 AND THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 DESC IN JEAN & VIERGELENE LLC 2848 GORDON STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 7 JOHNSON JR, ROAN E 3000 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5948 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC, E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT TO POB,N 89 DEG E 250FT, S 182.72FT,N 89 DEG W 250FT, N 180FT JONES, GINGER G WILLIAM M JONES EST 3508 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5906 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 16 JONES, MICHAEL E STEVEN J HAMMER 3022 NE 20TH CT FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33305---1808 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 11 + N1/2 OF LOT 12 JONES, SHADE 203 TORREY PINES PT NAPLES, FL 34113---7541 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 41 JOSEPH, JEAN & ESTHER 3415 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5933 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 9 KAREN L BEATTY REV LIV TRUST 3113 BASIN ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 40 + N 15FT LOT 39 OR 1458 PG 336 KATHLEEN JOAN PFEFFER TRUST 28439 DEL LAGO WAY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---2809 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 5 KING II, JAMES D & JANE G 3308 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---5916 13 50 25 LOT 6 UNREC PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 DESC AS:BEG AT A PT 342FT N OF THE KING II, JAMES D & JANE H 3308 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---5916 13 50 25 FROM PT OF N LINE OF ARECA AVE E 115FT, N 395FT TO POB, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT,E 115FT TO POB KRAL, MARIANNE 3416 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5934 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 15 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS II LLC 30 SOUTH MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---0 EASTGATE BLK A THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1-3 AND VACANT ALLEY ADJACENT ALL DESC IN OR 3939 PG 463 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT E KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT A KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT B KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 6 OR 1428 PG 1565 KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 25 KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 26 OR 1604 PG 1126 KYLE, MARK W 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 7 LAGUERRE, MULCAR MARIE ELIE NEPTUNE 2873 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 36 LAMBERT, J C APOLLO LAMBERT MATTHEW LAMBERT 3450 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 33962---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F N1/2 OF LOT 7 + S 45FT OF LOT 8 OR 698 PG 294 LARSON, SUSAN BABB 1956 5TH STREET S NAPLES, FL 34102---0 13 50 25 LOT 8 UNREC. PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DES.IN OR 5-66 ALSO FURTHER DESC LARSON, THOMAS G 1956 5TH ST S NAPLES, FL 34102---0 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR, S 460FT, E 175FT, N 70FT, E 75.10FT, N 20FT, W 12.50 FT,N 88.12FT, E 72.40FT, S LBD HOLDINGS LLC 27214 JOLLY ROGER LN BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---0 13 50 25 LOT 5 UNREC. PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DESC IN OR 845 PG 1341 POList_500_PL20180003658.xls PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 500' 3/25/2019 2 LOVE JR, JOHN N PO BOX 9822 NAPLES, FL 34101---9822 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 14 + N 40FT OF LOT 15 OR 1221 PG 1986 LOYOLA, JOSE L 2831 STORTER AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 BEG AT PT ON W LI OF SEC, N 77FT OF ARECA AVE, E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT TO POB, AKA LOT 2 OR MENDES, ANTONE C 2256 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---4706 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 25 OR 1572 PG 560 MK REALTY 3440 TAMIAMI TRL LLC 6685 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34114---0 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT D MORENO, GIOBERT PETRONILLA ALAMEIDA 3419 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 8 MORGAN, JOHN MORGAN, RACHEL 3164 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5930 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 24 MORGAN, ROBERT T & FRANCES 3282 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 1 OR 1288 PG 1647 MOTT, DAVID K 3400 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5934 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR, E 331.37FT, S281.88FT, E250 FT TO POB, E170FT, S184.64 FT,W170FT, N182.72FT TO POB .72 MOXAM, ABDIEL D MARIE S RIVERA 2540 53RD TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---7652 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 34 NAPIER, DONNA M 3317 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5900 13 50 25 N 100FT OF PROP DES IN OR 2611 PG 592 NICHOLS, ARTHUR S & STELLA M 3112 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 17 NKDH CAPITAL LLC 20533 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 1238 MIAMI, FL 33180---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 20, S30FT OF LOT 19 AND N 10FT LOT 21 NUNEZ, JAIME A LORENZA LUCRECIO NICOLAS 3174 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 20 LESS OR 1691 PG 1469, OR 1156 PG 1888 NYGARD, CHRISTOPHER M 3051 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 28 O CONNOR, JOHN & COLLEEN TRACY LARETZ ANGELA LARETZ O'CONNOR 7836 FARGO RD YALE, MI 48097---4819 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 3 PLAT DB 39 PG 190 OR 1087 PG 2100 PAMELA R SIZEMORE TRUST 2996 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5928 EASTGATE BLK B S1/2 OF LOT 12 + ALL OF LOT 13 PARLIER, RUTH DARLENE 3502 CALOOSA STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 16 PAUL W BURKE JR LIVING TRUST 107 OAKWOOD PL PARKERSBURG, WV 26104---0 EASTGATE BLK B S 25FT OF LT 17, LT 18, N 20 FT OF LOT 19 PENSCO TRUST PO BOX 173859 DENVER, CO 80217---0 13 50 25 W 115FT OF S 77FT OF N 805FT OF NW1/4 OR 1472 PG 2269 PICKLE, ERIC 458 BURNS RD LULING, TX 78648---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 30-31 PICON, CARLOS MANUEL MARIA TERESA RAMIL 3505 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 7 RAMOS FAMILY LAND TRUST 3122 GORDON STREET NAPLES, FL 34102---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 18 REIF, ROBERT S SUSAN M LIRVAK 454 SADDLEWORTH CIR ORLANDO, FL 32826---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 2-PLAT-DB 40-21 OR 1683 PG 09 ROBERT A FLICK REV TRUST PO BOX 835 NAPLES, FL 34106---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 22 ROBERT A FLICK REV TRUST PO BOX 835 NAPLES, FL 34106---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 18 ROSENDAHL, CHRISTOPHER S MATTHEW S ROSENDAHL 3026 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5904 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 13 ROSENDAHL, VICKI L 11 62ND STREET YANKEETOWN, FL 34498---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 22 AND S 5FT OF LOT 23 RUWE PROPERTIES LLC 4810 LAKEWOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 8 SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 3A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 4A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 8A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 5A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 6A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 7A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOTS 19,20 & 21 SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 1A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 2A SMITH EST, WILLIAM A 3124 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 19 SMITH, ROBERT E & HELEN J 3312 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5910 13 50 25 E 55FT OF W 110FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 1054 PG 261 SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP 11770 CALLA LILLY CT PALM BCH GARDENS, FL 33418---0 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT C SOWERS, CHARLES EDWARD CASSANDRA SOWERS 3501 CHEROKEE STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 7 STATON REVOCABLE TRUST 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 17 OR 1450 PG 1462 STATON REVOCABLE TRUST 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 10 STATON, RAYMOND W 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 EASTGATE BLK B N 40FT OF LOT 22 & S 40FT OF LOT 21 SUNSHINE REAL ESTATE HLDS LLLP 1650 NW 87TH AVE DORAL, FL 33172---0 12 50 25 OUT PARCEL 2 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS DESC AS:COMM AT SW CNR OF SEC 12,S 89 DEG E 331.40FT, N 39 DEG SWIFT OIL CHANGE INC 1891 PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34109---2133 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 6 AND 7 OR 1981 PG 856 SWIFT OIL CHANGE INC 1891 PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34109---2133 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 23 AND 24 OR 1981 PG 856 TIF-FL-B LLC PO BOX 630535 MIAMI, FL 33163---535 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 26 + 27 TIITF /DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 801 NORTH BROADWAY AVE % GREGG BODHE BARTOW, FL 33831---0 EASTGATE BLK A LOTS 1, 2 + 3 ALL OF VACANT ALLEY ADJOINING,LESS THAT PORTION LOT 1 AS DESC IN OR 32 PG 478, AND LESS TOWNSEND, RONALD A % ANDREA AYERS 441 14TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34120---0 13 50 25 E 110 OF W 330 FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 1593 PG 172 VADER PROPERTIES III INC 170 E 78TH ST #3F NEW YORK, NY 10075---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 14 +15 OR 1074 PG 1915 VALENCIA, FELIPE VALENCIA, JOSE 3173 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5923 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS SUB N 70FT OF LOT 23 VANDERPOOL, JIMMIE H 3300 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5910 13 50 25 W 55 FT OF W 110 FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 806 PG 876 WAL-MART STORES EAST LP TAX DEPT PO BOX 8050 MS-0555 STORE #1119 BENTONVILLE, AR 72716---1 12 50 25 THAT PART OF SEC 12 AND 13 DESC IN OR 1766 PG 2234 WASSBERG, PAUL R 3250 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 4 PLAT DB 38-110 OR 1435 PG 2197 POList_500_PL20180003658.xls PROOF O.K.BY:_____________________________O.K.WITH CORRECTIONS BY:___________________________ PLEASE READ CAREFULLY •SUBMIT CORRECTIONS ONLINE ADVERTISER:Q.GRADY MINOR &ASSOCIA PROOF CREATED AT :4/11/2019 12:38 PM SALES PERSON:NDN7103 PROOF DUE:- PUBLICATION:ND-DAILY NEXT RUN DATE:04/18/19 SIZE:3 col X 9.25 in ND-2267929.INDD ND-2267929 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA),Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and PL20180003658 (PUDA),Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D.Wayne Arnold,AICP, of Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.and Richard D.Yo vanovich,Esq. of Coleman,Yo vanovich and Koester,P.A.,representing KRG Courthouse Shadows,LLC (Applicant)will be held on: Tu esday,May 7,2019,6:00 pm at the Bayshore Gateway Tr iangle CRA Advisory Board Meeting,Naples Botanical Garden Buehler Auditorium, 4820 Bayshore Drive,Naples,Florida 34112 KRG Courthouse Shadows,LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County,seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan (GMP)Amendment and a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Amendment.The GMP amendment proposes to revise language of the Activity Center Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element to allow an additional 12.8 units per acre within 10 acres of the Courthouse Shadows PUD.The CPUD amendment application is a companion application to the GMP amendment and proposes to amend the 20.35+/-acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. The subject property (Courthouse Shadows MPUD)is comprised of approximately 20.35±acres,located the southeast corner of the intersection of Ta miami Tr ail East (U.S.41)and Airport Road in Sections 11,12,13,To wnship 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only,it is not a public hearing.Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor. com/planning.If you have questions or comments,they can be directed by mail,phone,fax or e-mail to:sumpenhour@gradyminor.com,phone 239- 947-1144,fax 239-947-0375,Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.,3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs,Florida 34134. ·1 ·2 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·8 ·9 10 11 12· · · COURTHOUSE SHADOWS MPUD NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 13· · · · · · · · PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 14· · · · · · · · · · · · · MAY 7, 2019 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 · YVer1f ·1· · · · · · · ·(Recorded meeting as follows:) ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Good evening, everybody. ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKERS:· Good evening. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Is this working?· Can you hear me? ·5· · · Okay.· I'll try to use it and talk as loud as I can.· We're ·6· · · going to go ahead and get started.· I know the regular CRA ·7· · · advisory board meeting begins at 6:30. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear you. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It's not working now?· Maybe I just 10· · · need to talk loud. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I don't think it's on. 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The green light is on.· I'll try to 13· · · talk loud and then hopefully it amplifies enough.· I'm Wayne 14· · · Arnold and I'm with Grady Minor & Associates.· I'm 15· · · representing Kite Realty who are the owners of the 16· · · Courthouse Shadows shopping center and I'll make some 17· · · introductions.· This is Sharon Umpenhour who's taping the 18· · · meeting.· She is with our office.· And we're required to 19· · · create an audio-tape or a videotape of the meeting and 20· · · provide those to the planning commission and staff and the 21· · · Board of County Commissioners. 22· · · · · · · ·And with me tonight I have Doug Kirby who's with 23· · · Kite Realty.· Some of you probably know him.· Doug's in the 24· · · back of the room there.· Rob Sucher is with Johnson 25· · · Development.· Johnson is under contract to buy the portion Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 2 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · that will be developed for residential units.· And Christina ·2· · · Johnson from JRE Engineering.· She's the engineer of record ·3· · · for the project.· Rich Yovanovich many of you know, a local ·4· · · attorney.· And Jim Banks is our traffic engineer who's ·5· · · working on the project. ·6· · · · · · · ·So this is -- the property is zoned a planned unit ·7· · · development.· It was zoned many years ago.· It's been ·8· · · developed with obviously the shopping center that's there. ·9· · · Most of the storefronts are vacant except for Wild Wings and 10· · · a couple of the outparcels.· So we're proposing to modify 11· · · the zoning to add an option for residential development. 12· · · And that means that we're not taking away what was formerly 13· · · approved most recently for the Sam's Club, big box type 14· · · store, but we're inserting a new master plan and an option 15· · · for development of up to 300 dwelling units on a good 16· · · portion of the property, a little over 18 acres of the 20 17· · · point something acre project to be developed with 18· · · residential. 19· · · · · · · ·Subject property, I'm sure all of you are familiar 20· · · what that is.· It's just located at the intersection of 21· · · Airport and U.S. 41.· It is in your CRA boundary, which is 22· · · why we thought it would be important to come here tonight to 23· · · talk to you because many of you gather for the CRA.· So we 24· · · wanted you to be aware of something that's going on in your 25· · · redevelopment area.· This is also an activity center number Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 3 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · 16 on the county's future land use map.· The area in pink is ·2· · · the activity center boundary.· It's a unique configuration, ·3· · · but it includes the shopping center as well as the ·4· · · government center and other things along the Airport and ·5· · · U.S. 41 intersection. ·6· · · · · · · ·What we're also proposing to do is a comprehensive ·7· · · plan amendment to this activity center and we are ·8· · · identifying a 10 acre portion.· So we qualify for what's ·9· · · called a small-scale plan amendment so we can add increased 10· · · density to get up to the 300 dwelling units that we need to 11· · · develop the property for the multiple-family apartments 12· · · on-site.· So you can see that in what just popped up like 13· · · that.· The 10 acre area where we're asking for the increased 14· · · density so that we can qualify for simple density is here. 15· · · It takes up a good portion of the site. 16· · · · · · · ·But you have a policy in your comprehensive plan 17· · · that says activity centers where you have areas that are 18· · · subject to coastal high hazard flooding areas can only get 19· · · four dwelling units per acre.· So we're proposing to 20· · · increase the density from four units an acre above that and 21· · · then utilize up to 97 of the bonus pool units that came off 22· · · the botanical garden property to develop up to 300 units 23· · · here.· This is the approved master plan and this one will 24· · · remain in tact.· It shows a large full map retail and 25· · · parking with the outparcels.· And that was developed for Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 4 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · what was going to be a Sam's Club. ·2· · · · · · · ·This is our proposed master plan and we changed it ·3· · · a little bit.· We've taken off the building configuration ·4· · · because Johnson Development is still working through and I'm ·5· · · going to show you some concepts of how the buildings could ·6· · · be arranged, but it is the concept at this point so we're ·7· · · leaving this open.· So areas that are identified thus far on ·8· · · the plan is the areas where residential could be ·9· · · constructed.· Those are areas called C/R you can see here 10· · · and those are parcels that are owned by Kite Realty, 11· · · including the Starbucks on the corner.· That would be 12· · · included in the sale, but obviously Starbucks would stay, 13· · · but we're including as a C/R mixed use parcel, if you will, 14· · · because that would be something that all of the developer 15· · · would control. 16· · · · · · · ·So the access points remain the same onto U.S. 41. 17· · · That's a signalized intersection and then we have a right 18· · · in, right out closer to Airport Road.· And then the other 19· · · access point that's located closer to Haldeman Creek.· One 20· · · access point on Peters that's closed off and then the access 21· · · at Starbucks would remain.· You can see that we've arranged 22· · · water management areas conceptually on the site keeping the 23· · · -- it's very similar to the design that was being used for 24· · · the Sam's Club.· I know the county and everybody is 25· · · concerned about the discharge to Haldeman Creek. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 5 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · · · · · ·If you have questions, Christina Johnson can answer ·2· · · some questions about drainage if you have them.· One of the ·3· · · things because of the residential component that Johnson ·4· · · would like to do is to bring Haldeman Creek into play by ·5· · · putting in probably some sort of kayak launch, a dock or ·6· · · something to activate the waterfront so that the residents ·7· · · would have some option for utilizing the creek.· And the ·8· · · property itself includes Haldeman Creek, so it is within our ·9· · · project boundary.· One small preserve area has been 10· · · indicated as being preserved as an option already in the PUD 11· · · to go off-site to mitigate for that should we need to.· So 12· · · that's kind of a snapshot of what their plan is at least 13· · · from the zoning plan standpoint. 14· · · · · · · ·We are asking for several new deviations.· There 15· · · were several deviations required for the big box club. 16· · · We're asking for other deviations that will allow us to 17· · · navigate and you know, residential on the property.· Some 18· · · relate to signage.· Right now the county doesn't really have 19· · · a standard for having a mixed-use project to have 20· · · residential identification signage, for instance, on what 21· · · otherwise would be a directory sign for the commercial user 22· · · as well.· So for instance, that's one of the deviations 23· · · we've requested. 24· · · · · · · ·All this will be available on-line if anybody wants 25· · · to take a look at it.· And Sharon has business cards up Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 6 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · there.· You can go to our web site.· We have linked a ·2· · · presentation that we show you for our neighborhood ·3· · · information meetings if would like to look at those in more ·4· · · detail.· One of the site plan arrangements that we're ·5· · · looking at is this.· And you can see building footprints, ·6· · · but you know, what remains would be Starbucks.· The other ·7· · · outparcels that are existing, you have the gas station.· You ·8· · · have the Healthy Cafe, Dunkin Donuts and whatever will ·9· · · become of the Burger King would all remain and those are 10· · · separate and apart from the mixed-use proposal. 11· · · · · · · ·But this plan highlights a little bit better. 12· · · These hashed areas become water management areas, for 13· · · instance.· It's likely that they're going to have 14· · · single-story garage parking available for some of the 15· · · buildings.· Some of the amenities will likely be within the 16· · · residential buildings and it wouldn't be just a stand-alone 17· · · clubhouse type building.· Most likely this is going to be 18· · · their sales and leasing office and some of the recreational 19· · · component.· Potential dog park down in here close to 20· · · Haldeman Creek, typical features that you see for a lot of 21· · · multi-family projects now. 22· · · · · · · ·This puts it on an aerial photograph and I know 23· · · it's probably a little more difficult to read, but at least 24· · · it shows you how that's going to relate to the neighborhood. 25· · · We're trying very hard to respect the homes that are on Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 7 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · Collee Court and Peters that are adjacent to us.· With that, ·2· · · that's a very brief overview and I'm happy to answer ·3· · · questions.· Like I said, we have our team here that can ·4· · · answer specific questions you have and I'll try to do that. ·5· · · All I ask is that we take them one at a time and we need to ·6· · · be clear.· They don't like us to talk over each other ·7· · · because it's really hard to hear if somebody wants to listen ·8· · · to the audio tape and it's hard for transcription.· So I'll ·9· · · just start right here in the front row. 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there going to be no commercial on 11· · · the bottom? 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The question was is there not going to 13· · · be commercial on the bottom?· And I don't believe it's the 14· · · intent of Johnson Development to have mixed-use in one 15· · · building.· The residential buildings would be separate. 16· · · They'll obviously be connected by pedestrian access points 17· · · and driveways to the remaining outparcels.· I saw a hand up 18· · · over here.· Yes, sir? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I see that the plan that you got 20· · · there shows the line going all the way over to the other 21· · · bank across from Bobby Cayden's property.· You own the 22· · · right-of-way all the way across Haldeman Creek? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do.· Haldeman Creek exists as a 24· · · drainage easement across Kite's property. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So they're granted an easement Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 8 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · across the property? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, there's an easement in favor of ·3· · · -- I'm not sure who all the parties are.· I know Collier ·4· · · County is one of the entities for Haldeman Creek, uh-huh. ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That would be Poley. ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I'm sorry.· I didn't hear the last ·7· · · part. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That would be Poley. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Poley, thank you.· I saw a hand over 10· · · here. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah. 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You've indicated that the development 14· · · is 20.35 acres, but there are 2.68 acres which are submerged 15· · · land, Parcel P that is owned by Kite.· Is that subtracted 16· · · from the developable area?· If it is, it only leaves about 17· · · 17 acres on which to site 300 homes and park 450 18· · · automobiles.· That constitutes in one acre 17 homes and 25 19· · · automobiles on one acre of developable land and I think 20· · · that's far too intense. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· I'm not going to dispute 22· · · your numbers, but I think it's a little over 18 acres that 23· · · Johnson Development is buying for the 300 units so the 24· · · density is a little less than you stated.· It's probably 25· · · closer to 16 units per acre overall, just so you know. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 9 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay, I'm a car and half off. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Just so you know, activity centers in ·3· · · Collier County are encouraged to be the areas where we have ·4· · · high density residential and more intense commercial uses. ·5· · · And almost everywhere else in the county activity centers ·6· · · are allowed up to 16 units per acre residential density. I ·7· · · know that sounds like a high number, but it is what our ·8· · · comprehensive plan says that you can have.· And then our ·9· · · comprehensive plan will ensure (inaudible).· Yes? 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I think better use of that property 11· · · would be as part of the government center and that should be 12· · · explored.· In addition to that, a mix of commercial and 13· · · residential might be more appropriate because of the traffic 14· · · volume at that intersection amongst other problems. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· So noted.· Thanks for the comment. 16· · · Anybody not -- yes, ma'am, back here? 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· What types of units and what price 18· · · range? 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, they are proposed to be rental 20· · · apartments. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Rental apartments? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, they're rental apartments.· And I 23· · · don't know if we have a price point yet.· I'm sure Rob can 24· · · indicate some of the price ranges that they're looking at, 25· · · but they're expected to be market-rate housing.· And you Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 10 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · know, price points will be commensurate with the market in ·2· · · the area.· Yes, sir? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· What's the anticipated square footage ·4· · · per unit? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Rob, do you have some thoughts on ·6· · · that? ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, I do.· I'll speak to everything, ·8· · · bounce back and forth.· Good evening, everyone.· This is Rob ·9· · · Sucher with Johnson Development and I'll try and answer your 10· · · specific questions.· We're also going to go stay a little 11· · · bit afterwards with the site plan just kind of on a larger 12· · · scale, larger scale on the site plan -- Did you guys hear 13· · · that?· I'll try to be loud here -- that you can see in a 14· · · little bit more detail if someone wants to take a look at 15· · · the plan after the meeting specifically.· The size of the 16· · · units, so we have not -- we're at an early stage right now 17· · · so we have not moved into full scale design at this point. 18· · · Typically in the market, you're going to see about an 19· · · average of 1,000 square feet.· It's a mix of one bedroom to 20· · · three bedroom units.· So it will be plus or minus 1,000 21· · · square feet, most likely, in the market.· Yeah, go ahead. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The development has over 730 lineal 23· · · feet of frontage on Haldeman Creek and I see you did very 24· · · little to explaining what the development will be there. 25· · · Will there be parking and boat dockage and common areas Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 11 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · along that waterfront property?· And I think it's an asset ·2· · · that should be utilized by the developer. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I could not agree more.· It is one of ·4· · · the most exciting things we have on this project ·5· · · specifically.· There's no existing community within Collier ·6· · · County on the rental side that does have the opportunity for ·7· · · canal activation.· So that is exactly what we look for and ·8· · · hope to be able to achieve.· Unfortunately, it is not just a ·9· · · county approval.· It actually has to go through U.S. Army 10· · · Corp.· So that is a lengthy process that we're going to be 11· · · doing concurrent to zoning application, but it is absolutely 12· · · our intent to activate that canal.· We would be the first 13· · · ones of the incredible disappointment to the project if we 14· · · were not to be able to achieve that.· So it's 100 percent in 15· · · the plans. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It is. 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I saw a hand up over there somewhere, 18· · · didn't I?· Okay.· Yes ma'am, go right ahead. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The 300 units, though, it's going to 20· · · take what, 600 cars?· There's already in the winter a 21· · · traffic jam there. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There's a bottle-neck. 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· One at a time, please.· One comment at 24· · · a time. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· In the mornings I live on the creek Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 12 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · so I come out by Seminole.· Actually, by Cardella's Law ·2· · · Offices.· I have to make a u-ie.· They're backed up halfway ·3· · · down Guilford every morning already in the summer.· What's ·4· · · it going to be with 600 more cars? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Right.· Well, I think part of the ·6· · · issue and we have our traffic engineer here, I mean, you ·7· · · have to remember that today they could refill the shopping ·8· · · center with 165,000 square feet retail space that generates ·9· · · far more trips than the residential trips.· So that's how 10· · · the traffic comparison was made and that's how the staff is 11· · · evaluating it based on retail versus residential.· Someone 12· · · who hasn't asked a question.· Sir, in the back? 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That is the third busiest 14· · · intersection in Collier County.· There are 90,000 cars at 15· · · peak season on 41 East and 35 -- 55,000 on Airport Road 16· · · going south.· That is a bottle-neck from the four corners 17· · · downtown Naples to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, if not further. 18· · · And adding 600 cars to that mix is going to be a mistake, I 19· · · believe, because currently I have witnessed emergency 20· · · vehicles that are delayed in their response at that 21· · · intersection. 22· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes, ma'am?· Oh, it's 23· · · Anita.· I couldn't see because of the light.· Sorry about 24· · · that. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Given that you have a lot of Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 13 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · multi-family here and a large employer, have you had any ·2· · · considerations for pedestrian improvements to help them ·3· · · cross the street at all?· Did staff ask you to consider ·4· · · that, how you move pedestrians around that area? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I don't think we've gotten quite that ·6· · · far, Anita, talking about all pedestrian interconnections. ·7· · · I mean, I think that's one of the things that attracts ·8· · · Johnson to this site is that you've got a large employment ·9· · · center at the government center next door.· You've got the 10· · · CAT transfer facility that's immediately across the street. 11· · · We have a traffic signalized intersection at both Airport 12· · · and at the entrance on U.S. 41 that does provide at least 13· · · for safe passage for people to cross the street to get to 14· · · and from work and shopping.· So I'm sure we'll be dialoguing 15· · · more with the transportation staff on that.· Yes, ma'am? 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many stories are each unit going 17· · · to be? 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, each unit will probably be a 19· · · single-story unit.· I don't know that they've settled on the 20· · · maximum number of stories for the project.· I can tell you 21· · · what we're asking for, for height for zoning, but I need to 22· · · put my glasses on to see that to make sure I read it 23· · · properly.· So for the multi-family we're asking for a zoned 24· · · height of 65 feet and an actual height of 70 feet.· That 25· · · probably translates into a maximum of five stories, I would Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 14 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · think, Rob, you know, most likely.· So that's what we're ·2· · · proposing.· Stand-alone amenity buildings would be 35 feet ·3· · · zoned, 45 feet actual height.· Yes, ma'am? ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There was a conversation with the ·5· · · previous plans that you had about fire suppression.· So to ·6· · · handle 300 units, plus units, how are you going to implement ·7· · · the same kind of thing with the water?· There was supposed ·8· · · to be some kind of a storage tank.· Does anybody have -- ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Christina, the question relates to 10· · · fire suppression and I don't know the answer to that. 11· · · · · · · ·MS. JOHNSON:· We had -- Christina Johnson, JRE 12· · · Engineering.· I'm not aware of the specifics of what was 13· · · approved previously for fire suppression.· But I have had 14· · · preliminary conversations with the City of Naples on the 15· · · water supply to the site and we have not seen anything that 16· · · appeared to be an issue.· It is a different use as a 17· · · residential use instead of a big box commercial.· So there 18· · · could perhaps have been a different requirement for the 19· · · commercial building.· So I'm not aware of any issues. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes, sir? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The deviation on that fire 22· · · suppression was that where Starbucks is they were putting in 23· · · a water storage tank with a pump in order to supply water to 24· · · extinguish the fire if the Sam's Club was built there 25· · · because they could not suppress the fire with the water that Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 15 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · was supplied by the city and the size of the line that the ·2· · · city was supplying to that area.· Now you are going to be ·3· · · doing residential areas, too, but only one is going to be ·4· · · going off at a time. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I'm going to let Doug Kirby try to ·6· · · address that.· He's the owner of the property. ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. KIRBY:· So the issue with Sam's Club is their ·8· · · occupancy and their building code standard is a high pile ·9· · · storage.· It's got a much denser requirement for fire 10· · · suppression.· Before the CRA provided the funds for the city 11· · · to operate the water system on Collee Court it was 12· · · borderline with Sam's on whether they needed the tank or 13· · · not.· The models that were being drawn at the time when 14· · · Sam's pulled out, excuse me, was that because of the 15· · · improvements funded by the CRA, they weren't going to need 16· · · it.· And the fire demands for residential building are much 17· · · less than a high piled storage calculated. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Sir, I'm going to go to somebody else 19· · · who hasn't asked a question yet and I'll come back to you 20· · · gladly.· Yes? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The common areas docks, are the 22· · · residents going to be able to have boats there or just 23· · · kayaks and canoes and things like that? 24· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· No boats. 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think the idea is that it would be Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 16 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · paddle boards, kayaks, canoes, sort of those types of ·2· · · things.· I don't expect to be motorized transportation ·3· · · there.· I think as Rob mentioned, it's looking to activate ·4· · · that and that would make the most (inaudible).· I saw ·5· · · another hand back here.· Yes, sir? ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Are they going to try to clean it up? ·7· · · I grew up there.· When I was a kid we used to swim in there, ·8· · · but I wouldn't wade in there now where we live.· And a lot ·9· · · of it is coming from Sam's, their parking lot and all. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, I think a lot of that does 11· · · filter down from north of U.S. 41, you are correct.· And I'm 12· · · sure that Johnson will be happy to clean it up.· I think 13· · · they want it to be a positive amenity for the community. 14· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Also with the water, I live across 15· · · the street from Bobby Cayden.· When his house burned I 16· · · didn't even have enough water pressure to shoot my hose up 17· · · on my roof. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, I can assure you that Christina 19· · · Johnson, our engineer, will look at that.· I know that the 20· · · city has made some improvements to the water supply system 21· · · over the last couple of years.· And hopefully -- 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I still don't have any water pressure 23· · · where I live. 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Getting back to the density bonus, Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 17 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · you said 96 units or whatever? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The bonus units we're eligible to use ·3· · · up to 97 units in the bonus pool. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is that a pool for the CRA that ·5· · · becomes depleted or is that -- ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I believe -- ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· -- just for this site? ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think, I'm not the expert, but Sue ·9· · · is here, Sue Faulkner from long-range planing, she may know. 10· · · But I think Mattamy Homes was going to utilize some of the 11· · · bonus pool units, but outside of that I don't know that 12· · · anybody else has utilized any of them.· So these were meant 13· · · to be an incentive to have redevelopment to gain those bonus 14· · · pool units.· So that's what we've applied to do.· Somebody 15· · · else who hasn't asked a question?· I just want to make sure 16· · · because I think the CRA would want to make sure we answer 17· · · all your questions.· I know the CRA has their regular 18· · · meeting following this.· So to the extent that we can get 19· · · through the questions that you ask, anybody who hasn't asked 20· · · a question yet would like to ask a question?· Yes, sir? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I totally agree with the colossal 22· · · traffic jam.· But does this increase impervious cover? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The question is does this increase 24· · · impervious coverage?· And I guess the question is compared 25· · · to what?· Probably not compared to if Sam's Club were to Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 18 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · have been constructed. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Compared to the Sam's Club? ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Uh-huh. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· No? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I don't believe it does.· Christina, I ·6· · · don't know if you know for sure, but it's probably ·7· · · comparable or less. ·8· · · · · · · ·MS. JOHNSON:· It's negligible. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes? 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The challenge that I see that no one 12· · · has addressed, though, is that the traffic may be the same 13· · · number of cars going in and out of there, but nobody has 14· · · addressed that everyone leaves at nine o'clock in the 15· · · morning and returns at five o'clock in the afternoon.· So it 16· · · might be the same number of cars coming in, but residential 17· · · is going to be the mornings and the evening rush hour. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, the county does make -- the 19· · · question if you didn't hear was about that even though we 20· · · may have less traffic, it all occurs at generally the same 21· · · time in the morning or evening because of the residential 22· · · nature of what's being proposed.· And I think that the 23· · · non-transportation engineer that I am, the answer is that 24· · · the county looks at a.m. peak hours.· They look at p.m. peak 25· · · hours.· And then we're required to analyze how much traffic Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 19 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · is generated during those times and where it's disbursed. ·2· · · And I think part of it is they can easily disburse from the ·3· · · site which makes a lot of sense. ·4· · · · · · · ·You can go north on Airport Road.· You can go east ·5· · · or west on the Trail and that helps disburse that.· And ·6· · · having the traffic signals for volume control is also ·7· · · comparable.· I don't know if the transportation engineer's ·8· · · version of -- you know, the comparison of the residential to ·9· · · the commercial option.· And I think we understand and I 10· · · think the county staff understands that the peak hours are 11· · · still going to be 7 to 9 a.m. in the mornings and 4 to 6 12· · · p.m. in the evenings.· So we have to analyze our situation. 13· · · Anybody else back there?· I'm having a hard time seeing. 14· · · The sun is coming in just below the shade.· Yes? 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I've got an idea for the pedestrian 16· · · crossing.· What about one of those bridges that goes up 17· · · over, across and down, you know, for people walking over to 18· · · that?· I mean, because whenever you're sitting at the light 19· · · and it's 30 seconds for someone to get across the street, 20· · · that increases the time. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It definitely does.· I mean, that's 22· · · one of the challenges we have in Collier County where you 23· · · have large intersections.· You have to give enough green 24· · · time for the pedestrian and it takes away from the green 25· · · time for the motorist.· We get that.· I don't know that it's Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 20 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · an economically feasible option.· The county has explored ·2· · · those at other intersections and they're extremely expensive ·3· · · because they have to be built for ADA compliance.· So they ·4· · · have to have either very long ramps that are circular and ·5· · · they're expensive.· The county doesn't maybe even like what ·6· · · the appearance would be to start having these pedestrian ·7· · · bridges over the roadway, but I understand your point.· It ·8· · · does increase and decrease the capacity. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thinking outside thoughts. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I understand.· Thanks for the comment. 11· · · Anybody else back there?· Yes, sir?· I saw your hand just 12· · · about ready to go up. 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You finally got back to me.· I'm 14· · · sorry to give you such a hard time. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· No, you're not.· That's why we're 16· · · here.· I just want to make sure everybody has a chance. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That light at Peters and U.S. 41 is a 18· · · very short light when you're on Peters Street.· I timed it 19· · · several times.· The maximum number of vehicles that can get 20· · · through that light before they turn it back to 41 is four 21· · · cars, the maximum and some will get through.· Only three out 22· · · lanes, two of which have to turn right on to 41 and go down 23· · · and make a u-turn to come east or to go west.· There's no 24· · · traffic that is going to have access on Peters Street now 25· · · that Starbucks is there and Wild Buffalo Wings is there, no Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 21 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · traffic can get out. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I can address that after just for the ·3· · · group is this orientation -- ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That light has to be lengthened and ·5· · · shorten lights on Airport and -- ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· When you look at Peters in the ·7· · · specific orientation of Kite, it's very intentional to ·8· · · actually bring traffic away from Peters and away from the ·9· · · intersection.· So our two principal entrances and the exits 10· · · are actually to the south, the southern signal. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Oh, they will be? 12· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes.· And you see these two where the 13· · · main entrance is actually at the left in, right in, right 14· · · out. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Oh, I see.· Okay. 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· And then we actually have our primary 17· · · entrance and exit where the majority of and that's where 18· · · we're encouraging the circulation of the site to be a big U 19· · · movement that would access the southern signal to move 20· · · traffic away from Peters. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I understand now.· You can turn left 22· · · at that location? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Correct.· And we're trying to minimize 24· · · the same impacts as the complication with Starbucks as well. 25· · · We understand that. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 22 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The other thing is you have that ·2· · · complex is going to use 44 million gallons of water a year ·3· · · if they use the average of 175 gallons per person per year. ·4· · · Is the City of Naples able to supply 44 million gallons of ·5· · · water and accept 44 million gallons of sewage from your ·6· · · facilities?· They have a 10 million gallon a day sewer plan ·7· · · and I don't think they're prepared to attempt it. ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· If I might, I would just say that ·9· · · we're required to do these utility forms.· Utility staff for 10· · · the county is reviewing that.· We do have city water.· It's 11· · · county sewage supply.· So the county is dealing with the 12· · · sewage.· There's no capacity issues with the county sewer 13· · · plans.· And I'm pretty sure that the City of Naples has 14· · · ample capacity.· Again, comparing what this could be if 15· · · retail users or restaurant users, I think we're pretty 16· · · comfortable.· And I think -- I know Christina has talked to 17· · · both entities and they feel comfortable because they 18· · · certainly have the service capacity for us.· Yes, ma'am? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· On your web site we can go in and 20· · · check all of this information out.· Will it show those 21· · · lights?· I'm still a little bit confused about coming out of 22· · · that area with all of those cars.· And Peters, is Peters 23· · · still going to be existing or no? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, Peters will be existing.· It's 25· · · going to remain an access point for Starbucks that will Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 23 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · remain on Peters.· One of the other access drives that was ·2· · · there if this develops to residential, I should say.· If it ·3· · · became a big box there would actually be one more access ·4· · · point on Peters than there is proposed for the residential. ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· Because then the residents are ·6· · · going to turn in.· I live right off of Tamiami and Osceola ·7· · · where we have to do the u-turn to go back towards town.· Is ·8· · · that the only other light you're talking about? ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, the lights we're talking about 10· · · are existing.· You have the one that services across from 11· · · the government center and then there's the light at Airport 12· · · and Peters.· So those are the two lighted intersections that 13· · · I'm referring to.· But yes, the information we have here if 14· · · you take one of Sharon Umpenhour's cards on the table, you 15· · · can go to our web site at GradyMinor.com and we have a link 16· · · to the application materials as well as a power point. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Sure.· Yes, sir? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I have a concern about the units 20· · · themselves and whether this is going to end up to be a 21· · · basically a dormitory type of housing development.· And the 22· · · question might be resolved by asking what kind of amenities 23· · · are you planning to have in the community in addition to 24· · · just a place to live? 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· That's probably a good segue to let -- Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 24 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · I'll let Rob tell you a little bit about Johnson ·2· · · Development.· How about that to sort of close out?· I'll let ·3· · · you talk a little bit about that, Rob, and then what you're ·4· · · looking at for amenities here. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Absolutely.· So Johnson Development is ·6· · · a family company based out of Spartanburg, South Carolina. ·7· · · We have multiple offices throughout the country:· D.C., New ·8· · · York, L.A., San Francisco.· All of our southeastern focus is ·9· · · based out of Spartanburg and then we move throughout the 10· · · regions.· So I've been working with Johnson Development for 11· · · about five years now on multiple divisions.· We have 12· · · industrial division, multi-family division, a storage 13· · · division, a commercial division and a community division, 14· · · which is an economic development for the City of 15· · · Spartanburg, South Carolina. 16· · · · · · · ·Specific to the family, we've developed close to 17· · · 10,000 units throughout the country.· Most of those in our 18· · · current pipeline are luxury Class A apartments.· So you're 19· · · going to have really the best thing of the amenities as well 20· · · as finishes that we offer in the market.· So the best in 21· · · classes is really kind of the new competitive vantage.· You 22· · · have to build what's nice, but also what's nicer than the 23· · · newest competition.· So what we're trying to do here is 24· · · create something that's unique based upon what is the huge 25· · · advantage of this site, the adjacency of employment as well Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · as the opportunity to connect to the Bayshore Arts District ·2· · · as well as the amenities of downtown in much closer ·3· · · proximity to competitive projects. ·4· · · · · · · ·The amenities specifically, we have again a luxury ·5· · · pool that's going to be right outside of the first L-shaped ·6· · · building.· A dog park is what we propose.· We see that about ·7· · · 40 percent of customers in apartments today are pet owners. ·8· · · So that's a big thing to have that sense of community ·9· · · on-site is important to us.· The activation of the canal is 10· · · something that we really feel is a special opportunity. 11· · · Like I mentioned before, something that does not exist today 12· · · in the county.· It's something that we have not done, had 13· · · the opportunity to, but to be able to paddle down, actually 14· · · up the creek to 360 Market, to Celebration Park.· A really 15· · · unique advantage that we're hoping to take the opportunity 16· · · to take advantage of, excuse me. 17· · · · · · · ·The other amenity that we're offering here that is 18· · · going to be unique, we've done it in a couple of places. 19· · · One is a project in Tampa that's under construction now as 20· · · well as a project in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, which is 21· · · in Charleston, South Carolina is a we-work concept.· So that 22· · · is going to be a co-work opportunity to where you have the 23· · · opportunity to office and work in the amenities themselves 24· · · to have a home office.· Be outside of your actual home, but 25· · · still be in the community itself.· So you don't have to pay Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 26 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · essentially for space, but we'll have conference spaces. ·2· · · We'll have individual desks there for the community itself. ·3· · · And that's seen across the industry as a huge opportunity to ·4· · · allow people spaces that feel larger, but also connect with ·5· · · the community itself. ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Are you going to have a fitness ·7· · · center? ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· We will, yes, absolutely.· Yeah, ·9· · · fitness is pretty much standard in the business today and 10· · · absolutely we'll have that.· We don't really decide on the 11· · · fitness delivery until just because trends are changing so 12· · · quickly, but it will be top of the market. 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Can you give us the names of some of 14· · · the developments that you've done that we could look at to 15· · · see what we might expect here? 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, absolutely.· And I'll have my 17· · · card out and I can give you.· It has a link to our web site 18· · · that has all of our projects in our pipeline. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there a particular project that 20· · · you either have going on now or had that would be similar to 21· · · what are you proposing here? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes.· We have a project that just 23· · · delivered in Charleston about nine months ago.· It's called 24· · · The Haven at Indigo Square. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It's called what? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 27 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· And that's linked directly from our ·4· · · web site, which is JohnsonDevelopment.net.· And you can go ·5· · · over to the actual site and see all the gallery in itself. ·6· · · The other project that we are hoping to start construction ·7· · · on over the summer is actually in Collier County. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear you. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, excuse me.· The other project 10· · · that we have in the pipeline locally is actually here and 11· · · will hopefully start construction early summer which is at 12· · · the intersection of Livingston and Radio Road.· The name of 13· · · that project is called The Lago and that design is currently 14· · · being permitted right now. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It's called what? 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Lago. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I'm sorry. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We didn't get the name of the place. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Say that again. 22· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The Haven at Indigo Square? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, ma'am. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And where is it located? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 28 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· That's in Mt. Pleasant, South ·2· · · Carolina, which is in Charleston.· The local project is ·3· · · named Lago, L-a-g-o, and that is at the intersection of ·4· · · Radio and Livingston.· That is currently being permitted, ·5· · · final permits with Collier County.· So unfortunately, we do ·6· · · not have the web site or images available quite yet, but ·7· · · we're hoping to start construction on that early this ·8· · · summer. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, folks? 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There used to be in Collier County 11· · · what was called continuity or concurrency, sorry, in which 12· · · the schools had to be adequate, the fire department had to 13· · · be adequate, the sidewalks, the roads had to be adequate for 14· · · development before it could be developed.· Can you meet all 15· · · of these criteria that are required for that kind of -- 16· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I can ask our attorney to respond, but 17· · · I think I can safely say that yes, we will make all the 18· · · concurrency requirements that Collier County has. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The fire department has its ladders 20· · · high enough to get to the sixth floor? 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I hope so.· We have buildings much 22· · · taller than that. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Because my ladder isn't high enough 24· · · to get into a tree. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We have a ladder truck now. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 29 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many units did the county allow ·4· · · you to have now?· Is that 95 more? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, no.· We're asking to utilize -- ·6· · · we're right now allowed to have four dwelling units per acre ·7· · · over the site.· We're asking for the ability to go up to 16 ·8· · · units per acre for the site. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there a reason why that we decided 10· · · on four per acre to begin with? 11· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The county did that for it's kind of a 12· · · base density throughout the urban area outside of activity 13· · · centers.· So if you're west of Collier Boulevard, for 14· · · instance, the base density is generally four dwelling units 15· · · per acre. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· So we're going to go from four to 16? 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, that's what we're proposing. 18· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· This is the reason why we all moved 19· · · here from the west coast, Bradenton, all of those areas 20· · · because it didn't do what they did up there and ruin our 21· · · area.· We kept it small.· We kept it less density.· So now 22· · · they're going to go to 16 from four.· So if you just keep it 23· · · the way it's supposed to be, then there's no problem.· And 24· · · that's why we all moved here. 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Part of the reason you're in a Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 30 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · redevelopment area is that we're trying to encourage people ·2· · · to redevelop sites like a shopping center that is a failed ·3· · · shopping center.· It's failed a number of times as being a ·4· · · grocery-anchored shopping center.· So we believe that given ·5· · · the location proximity to employment, given the government ·6· · · center location, proximity to the beach, downtown, the CRA, ·7· · · Bayshore Drive that the real opportunity here is for a ·8· · · mixed-use project that includes residential dwellings as ·9· · · well as some retail. 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Which is fine.· You can put that in 11· · · there, but just keep the density.· They're asking for more 12· · · than anybody else.· They've already ruined their town so now 13· · · they want to ruin our town by putting in all these people. 14· · · We got enough now. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You're welcome. 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes? 18· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You just mentioned apartments for 19· · · people who are working at the government center or perhaps 20· · · downtown.· Will the price point be something that those 21· · · service industry, for example, can afford who are working 22· · · downtown? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, these will be market rate.· So 24· · · that, I wish we knew what the market was going to be in two 25· · · years from now, but this will be consistent with market rate Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 31 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · apartments. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many years from now? ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I'm hopeful that we can get started ·4· · · construction, you know, sometime next year and deliver our ·5· · · first units within the next two to three years. ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions?· Yes, sir? ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah, on the old neighborhoods that ·8· · · are in the back end, what is the plan to buffer them from ·9· · · this? 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, the county has code requirements 11· · · for a buffer between multi-family residential and single 12· · · family.· It requires a certain type of hedge or wall and 13· · · vegetative screening, et cetera. 14· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Well, when they were doing the Sam's 15· · · Club, one of the deviations that they asked for and one of 16· · · the agreements they stipulated and the gentleman in the back 17· · · can probably move forward and answer that question is that 18· · · they agreed to put into a fund to upgrade the right-of-way 19· · · that surrounds that property on that side.· I forgot the 20· · · exact dollar amount, but they agreed to a dollar amount. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It was $50,000 for sidewalk for 22· · · pedestrians. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And that stays within this plan? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I believe those dollars -- Doug, you 25· · · can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those funds were in Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 32 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · place, were they not? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. KIRBY:· Yes. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· His response was yes. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, comments before ·6· · · we adjourn and let the CRA get on with their meeting?· Yes, ·7· · · sir? ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I live at that location which is 3312 ·9· · · Collee which is directly adjacent to your property or to 10· · · Kite's property for 38 years on the south side.· We were 11· · · there when it was an open field prior to construction of 12· · · Courthouse Shadows.· We went through a year of hell with the 13· · · construction process, the dust and dirt in our houses and 14· · · our cars.· There was blasting and excavating, earth moving 15· · · that was done that cracked our home.· We need -- the four 16· · · residents that own property directly adjacent to Kite's need 17· · · a telephone number and a contact on-site so that we can call 18· · · to register a problem that we have and hopefully it could be 19· · · resolved. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think that's a very fair comment. 21· · · And I think most of the quality contractors these days have 22· · · an on-site superintendent.· They supply you with a 24-hour 23· · · cell phone number. 24· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah, we would need that because of 25· · · the damage that was done to us over the course of this year Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 33 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · that it took for that Courthouse Shadows to be built. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Understood.· Yes, ma'am? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I just have a question regarding ·4· · · commercial because it appears that most of what is ·5· · · allocating now for commercial is going to be gone.· Is that ·6· · · kind of what I'm hearing that -- ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, under the residential option if ·8· · · Johnson Development decides to move ahead with this ·9· · · option -- 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Correct. 11· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· -- most of the inlying, the shopping 12· · · center building -- 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That we know now. 14· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· -- that you've known would be 15· · · demolished and in its place would be built this. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So the commercial will really 17· · · be more of the out buildings that we see?· Is that what I'm 18· · · understanding? 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· That is correct.· The remaining 20· · · commercial under the residential option is largely the 21· · · outparcels. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So this is really what we're 23· · · looking at is this site really is going to move, if you 24· · · will, from a commercial property to primarily residential 25· · · with a few out buildings? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 34 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Under this development scenario that's ·2· · · a correct statement, yes. ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay, thank you. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah.· Yes, sir in the back? ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Excuse me.· Regarding the parking ·6· · · spaces that you have outside of the single type family ·7· · · buildings, are those going to be exclusively use for the ·8· · · outparcels or will that be used as parking for, you know, ·9· · · overflow parking for the apartments or guest parking for the 10· · · apartments? 11· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, thank you for asking the 12· · · question.· So our attempt is to really activate the existing 13· · · commercial.· I think anybody can attest as a potential owner 14· · · or just visiting the center itself that it's very 15· · · challenging for businesses to be successful when you have a 16· · · vacant use behind you. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Correct. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· So this is a real opportunity that we 19· · · see is to activate -- you saw the successful development of 20· · · the Starbucks.· Also activate the remaining four outparcels 21· · · and allow for what hopefully is an increase not only in 22· · · on-site business, but also to have the presence of a new 23· · · expensive development behind them compared to a vacant 24· · · building.· What we're also doing is we're installing new 25· · · parking as mentioned by the question in between the Chevron Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 35 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · as well as the Crooked Shillelagh, excuse me.· And then we ·2· · · also have all the parking just south of the main critical ·3· · · driveway.· Those will also be installed for the betterment ·4· · · and the benefit of the residential and the retail itself. ·5· · · You can see behind the Burger King there's also new ·6· · · increased parking there. ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Right. ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· As well as the Dunkin Donuts to the ·9· · · east has new installed spots that will benefit those.· We 10· · · also have a preservation at the parking between the 11· · · Starbucks and the Crooked Shillelagh as well.· Those are 12· · · increased spots from what exists there today.· So all of 13· · · those are newly created spots that will benefit the retail 14· · · upfront. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· But will they be also used as 17· · · overflow for the apartments or -- 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The parking inside of the gates is for 19· · · the residential.· And we also do have some shared parking 20· · · opportunities that would benefit both the residential and 21· · · the retail. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· So then you would expect this to be a 23· · · gated community?· You said inside the gate.· So it would be 24· · · a gated community? 25· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, ma'am, but that's to be Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 36 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · consistent with the market.· I would say definitely ·2· · · predominantly, but if not exclusively all of the new ·3· · · apartment communities are gated. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, comments before ·5· · · we break up?· Anybody not have a chance to ask a question? ·6· · · Yes, sir? ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You have any idea when you go in ·8· · · front of the planning board? ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do not have hearing dates set yet. 10· · · This is -- 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And will we be getting a notice same 12· · · as we did? 13· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· If you were noticed for this meeting, 14· · · you should get notice from the county next time.· And of 15· · · course, the big 4 x 8 signs get installed, so you'll see 16· · · them.· As a neighborhood resident, you'll see those.· And do 17· · · we post those on our web site, Sharon, the dates? 18· · · · · · · ·MS. UMPENHOUR:· Yes. 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do, yeah.· So on our web site, too, 20· · · if you follow us.· I forgot to introduce a couple of county 21· · · people that are here.· You might want to write down their 22· · · names.· We have Sue Faulkner who's with comprehensive 23· · · planning.· She's sitting back here.· She's one of the 24· · · comprehensive planning staff people.· And James Sabo who's 25· · · one of the zoning staff people, they're here.· It's not Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 37 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1· · · their meeting per se, but they're here to monitor and take ·2· · · notes and make sure they understand what the citizen ·3· · · comments were.· So we appreciate everybody coming out.· If ·4· · · there's no other comments, we'll adjourn the meeting.· Thank ·5· · · you all for coming. ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Have a good CRA meeting. ·8· · · · · · · ·(End of the meeting.) ·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 38 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f ·1 ·2 ·3· · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E ·4· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - ·5 ·6 ·7· · · · · · · ·I, Vicki Woodham, Court Reporter and ·8· Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and ·9· did listen to and stenographically transcribe the foregoing 10· recorded meeting and that the transcript is a true record to the 11· best of my professional ability. 12 13 14· · · · · · · ·Dated this 21st day of May, 2019. 15 16 17 18 19· · · · · · · · · ·_______________________ · · · · · · · · · · ·Vicki Woodham, Court Reporter 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 39 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608